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

<> Wed, 12 June 2019 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA631200FE; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJeJDN_ss5qK; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6AAE1200BA; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45P0Hc6rkbzFsZT; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:23:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.35]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45P0Hc5RKdzCqmV; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:23:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::90fe:7dc1:fb15:a02b]) by OPEXCAUBM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f58e:8e9d:ae18:b9e3%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 10:23:08 +0200
From: <>
To: Xufeng Liu <>, "" <>, NETMOD WG <>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
Thread-Index: AQHVHtCamwgg95QEk0G9tnGAsu5YnKaXsikw
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:23:08 +0000
Message-ID: <6541_1560327788_5D00B66C_6541_22_15_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924C252A2E@OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924C252A2EOPEXCAUBMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:23:14 -0000

Hi Xufeng,

Good catch, I think there is a mistake here, the expected behavior is the one described in the draft. We should not use a default value for the level-x leaves.
Will fix it in the next release as part of the AD review.



From: Lsr [] On Behalf Of Xufeng Liu
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 16:35
Subject: [Lsr] A question on the parameter overriding in draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

In Section 2.3. and many other locations, the current IS-IS model applies the parameter overriding rule as below:


2.3<>.3>.  Per-Level Parameters

   Some parameters allow a per level configuration.  In this case, the

   parameter is modeled as a container with three configuration


   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











   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


[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:







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.


- Xufeng


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.