IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts

Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com> Fri, 29 January 2016 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1AE1A88A9; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:47:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9Bc_H1U2bJXt; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0117.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF4E81A88A6; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:47:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-metaswitch-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=BrrHyrM0Pkr4V8ffZuvkIhERZ+0AfVATePdhjaLgBUY=; b=NCWe2qp2UQxCNwcBI+Xp9kYiGakVwf6Ve29wHNAIOgW28GNPzL3YDYBDrdfQkEp/yCJ55ppRj0eWEXuB3Zp9zuIeeND9Myv6CE8ZhaIQfSlbz8sbccBaCmnsFBa3pXzb2lv2tlGLAng6KPG+6rXMfFeMVpW2ykls6PreHb4BD9c=
Received: from DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.221.14) by DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.221.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.390.13; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:47:35 +0000
Received: from DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.221.14]) by DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.221.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0390.016; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:47:35 +0000
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts
Thread-Index: AdE3NLGjjtMGuql0QfiSt+s9ulh9zgjfE2ew
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:47:35 +0000
Message-ID: <DM2PR0201MB1070615E1F602B0D653575CCF9DB0@DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804012A72782A@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804012A72782A@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=metaswitch.com;
x-originating-ip: [2620:104:4001:72:a485:2a09:ec72:8da0]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM2PR0201MB1070; 5:pYjnde6dQyo5CkcUFKgp2Db0vA+l7RerGWyuvgpyEx0R8joUWc2f5VUIcCuZw3MEjueYodZsB6rCv4dNL+6jKeVxiq2tqTECeMQUF4AtEYtDEZUYKLCFLnFtUe2SvBs7C4n6jD7UXrX7jszKLZ4K3w==; 24:U907V6L9KL+uAE0YNzh8hzU++2l3eYRYfe4bvj4VesqCZbKdtKNSZ2/k0NR1InlWp2XET6Bz0EjMExPIGg+ks+XHy8vbIa3hgyHRum25Q9o=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR0201MB1070;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2e88b361-a663-41eb-09f3-08d328d4456f
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM2PR0201MB10708E33CE2BD30B170CA040F9DB0@DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:DM2PR0201MB1070; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB1070;
x-forefront-prvs: 083691450C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51444003)(1096002)(86362001)(1220700001)(586003)(15975445007)(110136002)(6116002)(77096005)(790700001)(87936001)(102836003)(5008740100001)(11100500001)(230783001)(74316001)(5003600100002)(5004730100002)(92566002)(99286002)(2351001)(2950100001)(2900100001)(4326007)(54356999)(2501003)(2906002)(122556002)(50986999)(19580395003)(3280700002)(189998001)(19300405004)(40100003)(19580405001)(3660700001)(3470700001)(5001960100002)(76576001)(19625215002)(33656002)(5002640100001)(450100001)(10400500002)(76176999)(16236675004)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB1070; H:DM2PR0201MB1070.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM2PR0201MB1070615E1F602B0D653575CCF9DB0DM2PR0201MB1070_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Jan 2016 17:47:35.0735 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0201MB1070
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/uKiNzx2cv4_mhZpu1BqgdGYjDGE>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:47:44 -0000

Folks

I have not seen any response to my email below.  Does this mean that my comments will be incorporated into the next version of draft-ietf-ospf-yang?

Regards
Alan

From: Alan Davey
Sent: 15 December 2015 16:23
To: draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03 questions and doubts

Folks

I have a doubt about draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03.  Please let me know your thoughts on the following.

The text is OSPFv2-specific in places.  I think that it would be better to define separate top-level groupings and containers for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 and define common groupings and containers, where possible, that are used by both.

For example, grouping interface-operation contains the following, which is incorrect for OSPFv3.


-          leaf dr with type ipv4-address

-          leaf bdr with type ipv4-address.

I think that it would be better to define something along the following lines.


-          ospfv3-interface-operation {

o   uses interface-config

o   uses ospf-common-interface-operation

o   leaf dr {

?  type if:interface-ref

?  description:

*                   "The remote interface ID used by the Designated Router on

*                   this link.  This is the interface index of the interface local to the DR.";

o   etc

-          ospfv2-interface-operation {

o   uses interface-config

o   uses ospf-common-interface-operation

o   leaf dr {

?           type inet:ipv4-address;

?           description "Designated Router (DR) IP address.";

o   etc.

Regards
Alan Davey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email