Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)

Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net> Mon, 10 August 2020 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad@juniper.net>
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 313723A0D2B; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=juniper.net header.b=Z/Sd118C; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=JIOWd/QW
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 b3RnSTGDxDLv; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E5243A0D23; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07AKNpcr017073; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:23:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=DdHCx50Iav2mx/4FH9MP3TtjA8pK24LKaCm1efBi5DA=; b=Z/Sd118COmAcqXzG9LE0dvPHyiVXLxyy+c5zs1Vyo+HPWOAf91tV9PvvOEVKQE6kg4w3 5uCFQlicjDJi2lgAExGt+ZyGIu3a44zTlcOwbJxU1eq7am3iabrMT3j3whQ+1BP7I35F RUfbq8iPHgniuhctj+C2pCqyU1ETnVIn8uiyT0camvFaE5lZo3UNcdpRsSDhv/LQlbU2 y2rJoK1IR0jLYm6XwQ3TnC3JhuVZwB0fHAS4TsbFi0TZn4Ew4xTgK7JWja39QeNUOnkZ bGyySFUSsxN/3vI2sdJtrpV7B1YzTdsxS0zZJxkR3X0LAsxG5ZSBI9mqFcD1zAUJvTzh 9w==
Received: from nam10-bn7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn7nam10lp2105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.70.105]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32st0wk4aq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:23:51 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LsoKjcAqal+l5jSgYztMIDjZbMkDKMPbKRBmxsJ0c+vvserHmoP/m7BKrBsqj24FBNh/swSq0YbaFnlJF1v5px42AarcuJr1NHM56Jz1CFyniM4m0mKCMmy3+aV6TE8tSSCM/qKrIm4iEjkbLZUWtrmVD7nIZjk9poZpytGBpeHGgSCZkhy24MwiLA6OqLkrAM5PqZLcP9xBRmeMMiU+o0kFyaHHVuISkZt14qdkE2qpgREsGvVS9lM22VesuUjJDfRJziXOeElcRz5bUkBfgX4/sPnZz0vHWdbHfcmZGIH+O+6jfPXjZ7vj8Ptijtj5CJA6sdlCJwcpjzZNMvXPNQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DdHCx50Iav2mx/4FH9MP3TtjA8pK24LKaCm1efBi5DA=; b=l0VpJo8z9GPE+OA2G+JDHbtJEDLZT5pt7D6hxy5ip643aabVNnTKHPp2O9/24IVMWlZyvwbIqzStwb2JgKs88OdTfcTmuPwi65QzKOBCNoKV88IiZTPTJBiAkBm5e6TZEeodY+53h0x7zo5C7IQ1R71CElWqeMxvPI4h2oJgqh7+E7jVVBcfYF23wOBOXABR58+AL1zHQXrlY5FBVDy0WvBa/U212flvyH/kjS96BRzOMQEHPEf8tOy8/OL1orhq7J4W9QV5mFI8x7Vvcaf/xBpgFLYmp4yPLXsTXqAdWLf3G7X/zKP0BAMz0H+KxarFftR2HzP+BjOpli0hz8U/aA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=DdHCx50Iav2mx/4FH9MP3TtjA8pK24LKaCm1efBi5DA=; b=JIOWd/QW3XcAwxkOpv6XimqgcgPamSTnszj4L+KveBtbTjC9VnMyWAiBcGe6OuYEyHP4jpQck1nt19cIAkGR7n+X/NFmWuGOjFhVtANNoe63Tut/8nX8Jwa5FCfBUR+ZCplupZZ/WgTwfmAkc+tHQfGE+0j2Lt/rui55Rls+0Uo=
Received: from BYAPR05MB4136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:85::18) by BYAPR05MB5477.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:7f::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.6; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:23:48 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::380d:349c:196f:a61d]) by BYAPR05MB4136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::380d:349c:196f:a61d%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3283.014; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:23:48 +0000
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lhotka@nic.cz" <lhotka@nic.cz>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
Thread-Index: AQHWbNHUXD7iYiyo6Ey57883AGo+lqkxjfoAgAAg2ICAAA/wAP//zNmA
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:23:48 +0000
Message-ID: <57AAC8FB-65D7-40D9-BFE7-B16A7F680C0E@juniper.net>
References: <20200807154534.98486F4074B@rfc-editor.org> <AM7PR07MB62480F112A28FA0B0F068D91A0440@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB43664780B4844ABA07C84D0AB5440@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3073B02B-7413-4C00-ACF1-CA2679C0C949@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3073B02B-7413-4C00-ACF1-CA2679C0C949@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=42648655-a83a-47dd-85df-00007a4a57df; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-08-10T20:01:11Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Business Use Only;MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true;
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.39.20071300
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0479efaa-fa4a-416d-6aeb-08d83d6b4a0a
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB5477:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB5477B0A467FE6D5CE06967CEB7440@BYAPR05MB5477.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR05MB4136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(8676002)(6506007)(83380400001)(2906002)(186003)(966005)(54906003)(6486002)(64756008)(110136005)(71200400001)(8936002)(478600001)(4326008)(66946007)(66446008)(2616005)(33656002)(53546011)(66556008)(66476007)(6512007)(86362001)(36756003)(316002)(26005)(91956017)(76116006)(5660300002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8E9022A57912AD4B83A3876FBB1D09F5@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR05MB4136.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0479efaa-fa4a-416d-6aeb-08d83d6b4a0a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Aug 2020 20:23:48.4277 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mY8R9402eETrzP6ecxS2Cy7GoBJreyTjbNoRiG54zRTBIEhtBsVbMCUJ5Q/Ufe8/5u6+54SZwDIDtuU2X6x5+g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB5477
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-10_20:2020-08-06, 2020-08-10 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008100139
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Dl2Tb7O4ZmnxNLleTfYPx7k_dw0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:24:01 -0000

Hi Acee,

The existing RPC is used to query (defined AFIs=IPv4/IPv6) RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "destination address".
The MPLS module is trying to reuse this RPC so to query the MPLS RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "local label".
The RPC defined in RFC 8349 readily accepts MPLS AFI in it (/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route) - unless we augment and suppress it with a "when check".
IMO, it is reusable as-is but the text below is limiting the leaf name that identifies an entry in RIB to "destination-address" only - in MPLS RIB the entry leaf name that identifies an entry is "local-label".


        >            action active-route {
        >              description
        >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
        >                 destination address.
        >
        >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
        >                 parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";

Regards,
Tarek

On 8/10/20, 3:27 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

    [External Email. Be cautious of content]


    All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
    I just looked at this in more detail and I don't think the ietf-mpls.yang model should be augmenting the /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The intent of the RPC is to return the address-family specific active-route corresponding to the destination-address. This model attempts to overload this RPC with a different action all together - returning a route that has the local-label as an optional attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the augmentation should be removed from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced with a different one is up to the co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
    Thanks,
    Acee

    On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:

        [Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit filter]

        Hi Tom,

        I would be interested to hear from the original authors.

        My impression is that this is a technically reasonable change, but I don't think that an erratum can create a new revision of a YANG module.

        If this erratum was processed as "Hold for document update" then would that be sufficient to do the right thing in the MPLS YANG module?

        Regards,
        Rob


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
        > Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
        > To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>rg>; lhotka@nic.cz; Acee
        > Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>om>; yingzhen.qu@huawei.com; warren@kumari.net;
        > Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; joelja@bogus.com;
        > kent+ietf@watsen.net; lberger@labn.net
        > Cc: tsaad@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
        > Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)
        >
        > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of RFC Errata System
        > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
        > Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
        >
        > <tp>
        > This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated on this list on June
        > 16th.
        >
        > There is a degree of urgency about it.  The I-D in question is mpls-base-
        > yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a Normative dependency of bfd-
        > yang which is a Normative dependency for a small mountain of I-D which
        > have been waiting a year or so (e.g.  ospf-yang).
        >
        > I suspect that the technically perfect solution would involve a YANG
        > union, choice or some such structure but as I said in my Last Call comment
        > I can live with a label that contains such as 'address' encompassing such
        > as 'label' in the context of forwarding.  I take labels to mean what
        > labels mean rather than what I might find in a work of reference.
        >
        > Tom Petch
        >
        > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349,
        > "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".
        >
        > --------------------------------------
        > You may review the report below and at:
        > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxw8DnSr2A$
        >
        > --------------------------------------
        > Type: Technical
        > Reported by: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
        >
        > Section: 7
        >
        > Original Text
        > -------------
        > The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route in a RIB.
        > RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
        >
        > draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS as per
        > section 3 in RFC8349.
        >
        > The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment input
        > parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.
        >
        > For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named 'local-label'
        > since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.
        >
        > We ask to make the following change:
        >
        > OLD:
        >            action active-route {
        >              description
        >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
        >                 destination address.
        >
        >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
        >                 parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";
        >
        >
        > Corrected Text
        > --------------
        > NEW:
        >            action active-route {
        >              description
        >                "Return the active RIB route that is used for the
        >                 destination address.
        >
        >                 Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
        >                 parameters with a suitable leaf that identifies the
        > route.";
        >
        >
        > Notes
        > -----
        >
        >
        > Instructions:
        > -------------
        > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
        > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
        > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
        > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
        >
        > --------------------------------------
        > RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
        > --------------------------------------
        > Title               : A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA
        > Version)
        > Publication Date    : March 2018
        > Author(s)           : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
        > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
        > Source              : Network Modeling
        > Area                : Operations and Management
        > Stream              : IETF
        > Verifying Party     : IESG
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > netmod mailing list
        > netmod@ietf.org
        > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxxyc2_LZA$



Juniper Business Use Only