[netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 09 June 2019 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF78120075; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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] 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 AcH7uFTF_Iti; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 4ABDB12006F; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id m24so4968830ioo.2; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jQ1ACFjPCRkbtmAVS4VcBtSIY/tdv/64gqXUDCG2F/8=; b=H9WnYkkcR3roN1xqWROvm0XUrxRiTi+uB9Jm9YQ1bQuA0G9SJNTRcODHQMRUcFY4tP fx2ujEZf5pMhEgT23pIxM7HcXHqChvUQdmK+ZiK1m0vKoyV1a4ZgovhF+fa0xgWy/zfR yQNiQkiHguBoLlIYE2B791cHWV1P8yoJ+ok7yw8RB6lg7L1/O86OWx79wiUSJ8xqhkHB YlM225PUlCHuX9PbJ2o8GFe0PjM78wxAkrXqXVmF553W8AwxDfsR7YoxXaWOXFs8pto/ F/XMHHEpL3oZ4FEl2Gm8v2WrETYnFzaK7QioVv1hzN2MQp3AzZ58O6CAqskqDMpLXanO LCMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=jQ1ACFjPCRkbtmAVS4VcBtSIY/tdv/64gqXUDCG2F/8=; b=WKNuba5pCJaOvpcbYAd6RXuRG5Vi5dNO3PufRaS0xDM1iVqU8LWDUHWsN1Pcz1fIgm nBdBNdYNaPhBvwUPXKiE7fCjq5VmYQ8aMY5UIVxjlt6yI90qsNaFU2Cn82prO0cKBmRG hXg1fGNjVqDrZPg5MokavGK+f9F+3gPNysLFhYUnpLHBhRHOP7oNqXFQV9k1QJzNO/qD Xxz5mYR5KUpudSkQ/gb0ed+yS5i//AFvx+P6HDAVolmM8DdWCLue3fTlKeiryp6u05v8 tMqvWQlnEkfdoMwEe1podXgFCbNlUC69DzPk7qUTvpjJCw7vjsZpUvgfv+C1KyCxvaO0 ea8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXxxyNP0egpCfXBJ1zy3L33PuEBea7fzMA488ZDXQwT9M5UVAkL q49Svp4iqAd3rtk6oZp/i3s3U1XQmjbvDMzSSVIJhvGB
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy7WApeahtrfgosbKX6lDj9GO0hmEGgr7T6yXv0wglA07y/9Kr1261sfNgVFEYFAtYs7H1eLI3FO/E3YC9CeC8=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b804:: with SMTP id i4mr25947472iof.119.1560090922310; Sun, 09 Jun 2019 07:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:35:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPSQfshh0=itkUWmT1PMU3XVFNrjk5L49cbNKYr1m1BuWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: lsr@ietf.org, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e00da058ae4f90b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/7TJ96cuj8XZSsZqQepUIb5nBE7Y>
Subject: [netmod] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2019 14:35:25 -0000
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] A question on the parameter overriding i… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] A question on the parameter overridi… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] [Lsr] A question on the parameter ov… tom petch
- Re: [netmod] [Lsr] A question on the parameter ov… stephane.litkowski