IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 97CB11202B4; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Bl2hcvP_0yg4; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCDF120313; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id m10so4713313edv.6; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+UVP/NX3/ORB+4+zY7nxbe1repVhNeqgvHM3bxFfy3I=; b=Eq7HyNbqE74nofUjiab8KUupOO4MvFj19RbKOUdf0bRYZeC/97rMTE8NUsOEXvXWUO 9LjYiA8JsZsk5kxX0kFOBWgPgbSNq2RNCnBe9XzTZD5fvDRN19f/Tspvjy8qSQMWDdoh iVahm/10HvLq29K6suEZ6wsScGcb+3MK2wyiNEN7Ez69pzZrEJNxkJgz7D3dkb0AoUvi nus9nrscCRnyf5P9BecWCps7AW5l0uB+nSvar5Fwv8yXl++aMH+hmSmX0/FsKBG9YFGG eESe+8V+OyJ6DRy3Ox4PZyBMR8L64QGcLKfX+V/70bdsbCGWQJConZqwWFKl8NcvCI7Y ldIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+UVP/NX3/ORB+4+zY7nxbe1repVhNeqgvHM3bxFfy3I=; b=cP7XdtR1k1uzt97mVqf8JesQadRB4BubSHv+sj0nANzj46+1AlNfGyycRg+DXuropQ Z1coquiyK29qzU6lFWXYmRIP5Tse6Plm6C45Bb4muVcJeB0z0qzL8cK2NJACYFtZfjin xGzTqPf4OhIRkFBWi9hLxwuRaI2SACmykJgl0YALHMj3YTN8F5ZXo20Gm7Ogurgskz7N G0AG3XKzlgPKyEksKIjMq380T/6AZgf0H2+heRPUEjVqHKFsT2FQt3kuchbTOGHr3F4X 3uGb2ioXeXzvzqUTYbaGg6khq+A+lm97duNgVl5yfrKxA/mtZ5/qz3dSTEdeZR3yQ+/B 8HQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5Q8Ir5uX4WLhoNALYu88yPoXqRSFGLi82NoO85XtdDk9u4heY PNt7L5qJ5wxJJKS6gzEXb9splAKJXd/NUnNx+2o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwp9KfvaKC/PlQRRnTKVIpUbXvk9+j8Cu1PXwKrReXDg4agRcmxoO/IDTeWqhqZGqXHYZgloj5O1aqXkuSgDGo=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ca49:: with SMTP id j9mr7788240edt.148.1561577171087; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:26:10 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <898A5C23-D95A-4CED-B99A-9881C95D236B@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESsztO1a4fnT2Gx2GDKcYVLtWS52WZ=HmPdQ9VFqSEtvG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <77F1A67E-2EB8-453E-8E89-70C55A820E03@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxq4dAvGn0n30NnpbygLf13j5uWK6=6feqNJsMDuzuUrQ@mail.gmail.com> <898A5C23-D95A-4CED-B99A-9881C95D236B@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:26:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMMESsx+KXmQJth+OKBrUkrSoMMuYH=Lk755a7tw0qGwpB6sWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092765c058c3f0424"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/r2HWdMAxkauH9Lmjd54gPbPxxjM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:26:15 -0000

On June 26, 2019 at 11:53:28 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com) wrote:

Acee:

Hi!

This may take a couple iterations. See inline.

I only have one response. :-)


...

...

3936       leaf dead-timer {

3937         type uint32;

3938         units "seconds";

3939         config false;

3940         description "This timer tracks the remaining time before

3941                      the neighbor is declared dead.";

3942       }



[major] For *-timer: Is tracking the remaining time in seconds enough?  I
would assume that ms would be the right unit.  Why seconds?

<acee> Because sub-second hellos was a bad idea – three words: B-F-D…'

This question is not about sub-second Hellos…it’s about the *remaining
time*.  Even if Hellos are x seconds apart, the “remaining time before the
neighbor is declared dead” can still be in ms, right?  Why not?  Note that
there are other places in the model that are characterized as tracking the
remaining time.


Thanks!!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email