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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 27 June 2019 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 D9089120094; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=MGwTGbzS; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=kFJvEvea
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 v5yS2HFnGOAp; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B4812006B; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13035; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1561599066; x=1562808666; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=OhJ529N8fzKRYQOMdU3VwE61jn8o7ltld1+3K3Gby2w=; b=MGwTGbzSkVg5DX5Ca/1ikCit/y/jCvOJWIGbv1tL/V6Vysoh8CrXqFnJ lvcPJt+bXMFKQDNrzDpV67yPRHE0uE4Q6TCf9VfpQElL2crWx/J0MkjPw amDNN2XEousFjpJ0B9YXrq1kcQYEt7bjY4un2FrVYlLqkBJor4RLeGsJo I=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AySP1yxVbSat0QYmRbCGNtvJwvDjV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANiJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dEwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/Zic3EexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AoAABbGxRd/4UNJK1kGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBVgIBAQEBCwGBFC9QA2pVIAQLKIQZg0cDjlqCW4lKiR+EVIJ?= =?us-ascii?q?SA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCZiM3Bg4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVKAQEBBBI?= =?us-ascii?q?RHQEBNwEPAgEIDgMDAQIoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQBDQUigwABgR1NAx0BmlACgTi?= =?us-ascii?q?IX3GBMYJ5AQEFhQkNC4IRCYE0AYtdF4F/gTgfgkw+ghqCShaCVDKCJo5YhHq?= =?us-ascii?q?IV404PwkCghaPf4NxG5dVjSmJJ41xAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFmIoFYcBVlAYJBgkG?= =?us-ascii?q?DcIpTcoEpjg0BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,422,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="363166964"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Jun 2019 01:31:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5R1V4Jc016119 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:31:04 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:31:03 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:31:03 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:31:03 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=OhJ529N8fzKRYQOMdU3VwE61jn8o7ltld1+3K3Gby2w=; b=kFJvEveaPg84PCX/zxl/ifOLsDtbuIwiTHV63ZUhhOn/8UDU9an9eZXDzIYu9Dw+JwJcGlfZ5VeBjzZmvmeDJ17aZE4QLFocJJMtrE1B7fTXQLOgqDaAkh9vielYIXhsGsePHDv0Z2XpKw1tvghPDDmYE1UEFvTi9uz2KrN7Spg=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.53.139) by MWHPR11MB2015.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.169.236.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2008.16; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:31:02 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f1d4:41cf:84d6:ff73]) by MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f1d4:41cf:84d6:ff73%2]) with mapi id 15.20.2008.018; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:31:02 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.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>
Thread-Topic: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
Thread-Index: AQHVG+281sKnENvLf0eo2GqtHHjXvKaoIpoAgANC5ICAAo4oAIAAfoMAgAAi4AA=
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:31:02 +0000
Message-ID: <B5FAB592-D74E-44FB-85AF-227AB3FDD2AC@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> <CAMMESsx+KXmQJth+OKBrUkrSoMMuYH=Lk755a7tw0qGwpB6sWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsx+KXmQJth+OKBrUkrSoMMuYH=Lk755a7tw0qGwpB6sWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1006::44e]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ef5f6231-bbe3-41ad-b915-08d6fa9f1d98
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR11MB2015;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB2015:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB201538591851C17C78FFBF09C2FD0@MWHPR11MB2015.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 008184426E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(2616005)(476003)(68736007)(486006)(6306002)(8936002)(11346002)(478600001)(53936002)(9326002)(6512007)(46003)(446003)(54896002)(36756003)(236005)(81166006)(99286004)(76176011)(6506007)(53546011)(2906002)(7736002)(25786009)(6246003)(14454004)(4326008)(6436002)(5660300002)(81156014)(229853002)(8676002)(86362001)(6486002)(66446008)(73956011)(66476007)(91956017)(76116006)(64756008)(66946007)(66556008)(33656002)(71190400001)(256004)(71200400001)(316002)(2501003)(102836004)(110136005)(54906003)(186003)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB2015; H:MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: xvTzmjklAzYOLX4u+9oEQ5xM55wIEfz7vxI4zSOKjxmykQC4GpUOYvUDPAm61nf0AWktIiqbniquFy5ZvIdh/d6XtTQ2zZrXIBNyspqwmfzPJZD0lwBSjDLsywn3eULS1K909HP/li39tSH4//+Puj26DXjjEbgWiqRBXtMvedliA75kV1O7SFvKuGs4/MuwnMWW5U6G4icxNQbM58qSHerYVAXK+ZSF5yGk/it+j+0fvru9AO2GNcfWMR7XOEdRxUareN30UIZwpo4mGHXE1fDGAtTIsLchO31Ss3LcnzPiyE3ChdINxc7nInJAyfvDMe2qIGmeFdPOJFlSeqhtAOtppJQM/bVAspgK26xRONOf4g5bdOBwSjwvsQdpLLUj+ATXsELT5j32f1yF5IlG17PD5aySnnuHRPFK8X1zUxE=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B5FAB592D74E44FB85AF227AB3FDD2ACciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ef5f6231-bbe3-41ad-b915-08d6fa9f1d98
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jun 2019 01:31:02.1565 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: acee@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB2015
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/z6Faw5-6gL2O-JACafSqoxXlN9o>
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 01:31:09 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 3:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>;
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org"; <lsr@ietf.org>;, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org"; <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21

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

I don’t feel that strongly. However, it would seem that one would use the same granularity as the configuration. No?

We found that the RFC 8294 timer types aren’t good for “config true” values since the values “infinity” and “not-set” are included in the union. Hence, they lend themselves better to operational state than configurable values.

Thanks,
Acee









Thanks!!

Alvaro.