[OSPF] OSPF/ISIS bottlenecks for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp and draft-ietf-rtwg-yang-rip publications

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44E0126DFF; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:28 -0800 (PST)
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
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 Xc0_7zFjX2u8; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-3.cisco.com (bgl-iport-3.cisco.com [72.163.197.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6024126CB6; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 18:14:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510539265; x=1511748865; h=subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=BlQKREHgnTqsqEnkkGzb6pJlwiGBJryD6M3zoFK1TIs=; b=AveJBb7r1N0J/ejXFoj0wnR8/wcazyogmzBb4AMovg4YW4fo+sKCRXMI HQtug0QhdeUbAVenQsgpq+E09fVcR/5HOrQ7eBuJIZWbU1QpevDBQZfaM DwXk4MhFoEO2rvxxuym4NOsMm8ztu80RWjC8+cjBEo974i6EfxnRlPbGx k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BFBgA1/wha/xjFo0hBGhwBAQEEAQEKAQGEGW4ng36LE5AMJohXiDGFSBCCAQolhRYChQcWAQEBAQEBAQEBax0LhR4BBiNWEAkTAwECKwICIS4IBg0GAgEBigYDFRAzjHKdaIInJocKDYNJAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDNINcgWkpC4VhWYEbWIJ1gmMFknqOcz2Ha4gghHmLfYdFjGg6gRCHcoE5JgsmGYFZNCEIHRWDLYMRgVs0NgEBiUwsghYBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.44,386,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="44252106"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-2.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Nov 2017 02:14:21 +0000
Received: from [10.75.234.179] (hkidc-vpn-client-234-179.cisco.com [10.75.234.179]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAD2EKHB013304; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:14:21 GMT
References: <1332bb78-36a8-2888-2642-f08a30593a10@cisco.com>
To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Cc: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <1332bb78-36a8-2888-2642-f08a30593a10@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9274a012-54b4-555b-5676-0da13a7fa22c@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:14:20 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1332bb78-36a8-2888-2642-f08a30593a10@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C897CC6CF3BDC224E97A6A00"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Ey2dxofeNKB2lpGxPiRysTa0o1g>
Subject: [OSPF] OSPF/ISIS bottlenecks for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp and draft-ietf-rtwg-yang-rip publications
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 02:14:28 -0000

Dear all,

[I understand that I will reach both ISIS and OSPF folks with this mailer]

The ask for this group is to progress those documents:

  * draft-ietf-ospf-yang: ietf-ospf (draft status: still ID-exists)
  * draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg: ietf-isis (draft status: still ID-exists)

https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-ospf@2017-10-30.yang

     => it passes validation and is NMDA compliant. Good.

https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-isis@2017-07-25.yang

     => it doesn't pass validation: 
https://yangcatalog.org/results/ietf-isis@2017-07-25_ietf.html
     => it's not NMDA compliant (tree-type = split)

Regards, Benoit

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	NETMOD bottlenecks for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp and 
draft-ietf-rtwg-yang-rip publications
Date: 	Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:02:27 +0800
From: 	Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: 	NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>, ospf-chairs@ietf.org 
<ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, isis-chairs@ietf.org <isis-chairs@ietf.org>
CC: 	Routing WG <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, 
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>



Dear all,

Currently sitting in the rtgwg WG.
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp and draft-ietf-rtwg-yang-rip are currently in 
AD review.
Let's look at the datatracker new YANG-related URLs to understand the 
impact analysis (the dependent YANG modules) for these two drafts:

  * https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-vrrp@2017-10-25.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both
  * https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-rip@2017-10-25.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both

So the bottlenecks for standardization are:

  * draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp:
      o RFC7223bis: ietf-interfaces
      o RFC7277bis: ietf-ip

  * draft-ietf-rtwg-yang-rip:
      o RFC7223bis: ietf-interfaces
      o RFC7277bis: ietf-ip
      o RFC8022bis: ietf-routing
      o draft-ietf-ospf-yang: ietf-ospf (draft status: still ID-exists)
      o draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg: ietf-isis (draft status: still
        ID-exists)

So the ask to close on RFC7223bis, RFC7277bis, and RFC8022bis asap.
I understand the LC will start soon for these drafts.

Regards, Benoit