Re: [Lsr] [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 10 June 2019 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845411200C4; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4VCC-qN-El_n; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43AFA12002E; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5FCE68F9D66AD3E9F2A6; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:37:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:37:21 +0100
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:37:21 +0100
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:37:21 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.182]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:37:14 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
Thread-Index: AdUfNMAudOA6KCdISCWw7MDlQqFz2g==
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 02:37:13 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA496568F@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/dUhj6ycHjFtzVjQNOq-SbPbIpBM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 02:37:26 -0000

I think what they are looking for in RFC7950 is generic overridden rule, i.e., a parent node statement can be overridden by its child node substatement.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Juergen Schoenwaelder
发送时间: 2019年6月9日 23:28
收件人: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>;
抄送: lsr@ietf.org; NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>;
主题: Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

Hi,

YANG does not have 'levels'. This seems to be an ISIS specific question you should ask on the ISIS list.

/js

On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 10:35:11AM -0400, Xufeng Liu wrote:
> In Section 2.3. and many other locations, the current IS-IS model 
> applies the parameter overriding rule as below:
> 
> [Quote]:
> 
> 2.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-35#section-2..3>;.
> Per-Level Parameters
> 
> 
>    Some parameters allow a per level configuration.  In this case, the
>    parameter is modeled as a container with three configuration
>    locations:
> 
>    o  a top-level container: corresponds to level-1-2, so the
>       configuration applies to both levels.
> 
>    o  a level-1 container: corresponds to level-1 specific parameters.
> 
>    o  a level-2 container: corresponds to level-2 specific parameters.
> 
>                +--rw priority
>                |  +--rw value?     uint8
>                |  +--rw level-1
>                |  |  +--rw value?   uint8
>                |  +--rw level-2
>                |     +--rw value?   uint8
> 
>    Example:
> 
>            <priority>
>                <value>250</value>
>                <level-1>
>                    <value>100</value>
>                </level-1>
>                <level-2>
>                    <value>200</value>
>                </level-2>
>            </priority>
> 
>    An implementation SHOULD prefer a level specific parameter over a
>    level-all parameter.  As example, if the priority is 100 for the
>    level-1, 200 for the level-2 and 250 for the top-level configuration,
>    the implementation should use 100 for the level-1 and 200 for the
>    level-2.
> 
> [End of Quote]
> 
> 
> In the model, all three value leaves above have a default statement 
> “default 64”, which brings up my question for the following example:
> 
> 
>            <priority>
>                <value>250</value>
>                <level-1>
>                    <value>100</value>
>                </level-1>
>            </priority>
> 
> 
> The user does not provide a configured value for level-2. According to 
> Section 7.6.1. of RFC7950, because the default value is in use, “the 
> server MUST operationally behave as if the leaf was present in the 
> data tree with the default value as its value”. This means the 
> priority value for level-2 will be 64 (the default value), so the 
> value 250 can never take effect as intended in the above quoted Section 2.3.
> 
> 
> Is my understanding correct?
> 
> 
> Since this is a generic question, I am CC’ing NETMOD WG too.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Xufeng

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod