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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sun, 09 June 2019 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 E46BA12006E; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 rIFxLBvwa1aR; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493F1120019; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A3B6E5; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id CAb834kAxwS3; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C0A20128; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id naplHbpaZC0f; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E2420126; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:30 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id B9B843009FDC37; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 17:28:29 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: <lsr@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190609152829.r25rkc4gevnzgcka@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, lsr@ietf.org, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <CAEz6PPSQfshh0=itkUWmT1PMU3XVFNrjk5L49cbNKYr1m1BuWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEz6PPSQfshh0=itkUWmT1PMU3XVFNrjk5L49cbNKYr1m1BuWA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.120) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/xcUEwNl6K36dnAJM9fM602ZmKiI>
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: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 15:28:37 -0000

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/>