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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 3:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Stephane Litkowski <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21

On June 26, 2019 at 11:53:28 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) 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.