Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support?
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 23 October 2018 21:36 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F744130E63 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 BGqus79N6b5u for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 E5EA5130DEC for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id p11-v6so2331062lfc.6 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HXrOENsgLBQSzFDKJKR5yWv/54cMZTcWUbMbFjAFWoM=; b=lFHU4TN77ayAkQy4r1a9iu5TNwQN/qPeRqWzcSbuBLjW2gA2kK83CAFXIv2D7zmrep 6sdikEY2lzZwmYjG+/KEzzt0ojBdjiXEnEiqlw73zx/gq1EIm8b4dyk8AP3PDhUnAikN ufC5ZJvDq5jT3688psdNIQhoDAVKQ2JYcbqK4BBgfEZG04xlZoFmGOSX5Wh0JfK2X8Wi 0jmurASi6LmCyCpk8R+ZssUgrBzRD+WXm++FtLD3cCKmVGahBn6/9lJeLaiAgPzhjO/U QRb/wrz/Lb2XMFXoluyzrQVrROojqvYme03dpexrdiGNT2gJ6hXYKIfCDw17/+GOqOeF 10kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HXrOENsgLBQSzFDKJKR5yWv/54cMZTcWUbMbFjAFWoM=; b=EvYnBcnc7Hm6FWYG/uFyJV9AoqYKwDwx9tB4ToD3gCwuozIeC/pWyfCVCgIgHUTyLz ZIFBONdYJgGhKENFdYqZKFqk9k1IgZSXQlLVIGE4Fby96qw3mz6GS6LxDEHYM9HlIIxM PIKCE8dthK6YDMruiZvUsbHd+sPb26TRrV9Fv/KnTJVc2GZbVcaUup2c4Ofpb9RkwWsb R4OteiKNioyTQhYMykVt0oCEwJDyJfkdznzdZS+c//ZM2XVp/DbYPviNE3cHtn5VzK37 jh7FeJexKgxkEhIFIcWwCyIvgotjDxRREUHMPNZNwxeNIKc3eyKUM9xZveSpis7lCKsw p18w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohWLnDC9hZZVfLCBUTiavxx8pB57Ec4dJ2Y6BNgsAmdCUn+W8Ru 0t8fg8exa5gvYI+jyHNglORhPaWcw8Y7Kfq+vZx0LA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV6306yCNyaC0lXg8vUpN/aJVwbPNGTrpF/5h8pJQ4VqLnRViGyFr6XY3HjUrAMkd2E9e693BagwKtWrK55ELQyo=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:690d:: with SMTP id e13mr9046175lfc.84.1540330565407; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:1f87:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8AC97776-E280-45D0-86AC-08BF3F13A60B@cisco.com>
References: <8AC97776-E280-45D0-86AC-08BF3F13A60B@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTSiW8y46SMvXcyW0rTZmNDfHPUka_Y35gW8v5M8yC--Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Guofeng <guofeng@huawei.com>, Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Pete McAllister <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000303d730578ec288a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/XQEkRpzDVqREoW0U9QnCBrpVLfY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:20:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support?
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:36:23 -0000
Hi, It has been discussed before. It is already allowed for config=false nodes so the change would be to allow config=true nodes to have no keys. Each time it comes up, somebody mentions that (a) NETCONF/RESTCONF has no mechanism to delete all list entries (b) The client cannot create more than 1 entry. How does the server know the next entry is a different instance or replacing the first instance? What is the use-case for a config list without keys? Andy On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > <Changed subject> > > > > Hi Xufeng, > > > > I don’t know if this has been discussed for yang-next but it doesn’t seem > to be in the yang-next list. I believe optional keys were discussed for > YANG1.1, maybe others on the YD list remember… > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues > > > > In this case, I believe it would have been useful to have that > functionality. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > *From: *Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 4:39 PM > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> > *Cc: *"janl@tail-f.com" <janl@tail-f.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar < > sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Guofeng < > guofeng@huawei.com>, Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>, " > yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Liuyisong < > liuyisong@huawei.com>, Pete McAllister <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, " > pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [yang-doctors] [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07 > > > > Hi Reshad and All, > > > > Do you think that it would be useful to eventually extend YANG spec to > allow an optional key with a default value? That would allow the user not > to enter the extra empty string, and make the model more user friendly. > > > > Thanks, > > - Xufeng > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) < > rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Xufeng, > > > > I think we should go with the solution proposed by Chris (attached) when > we last discussed this. I realize it’s not ideal but IMO it’s better than > other proposals. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > *From: *yang-doctors <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Xufeng > Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:21 AM > *To: *"janl@tail-f.com" <janl@tail-f.com> > *Cc: *Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Stig Venaas < > stig@venaas.com>, Guofeng <guofeng@huawei.com>, Anish Peter < > anish.ietf@gmail.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, > Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Pete McAllister < > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [yang-doctors] [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07 > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > Thanks for reviewing. > > For #1, as discussed, there is no other better solution at the moment. > What would you suggest? > > Thanks. > > - Xufeng > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:25 AM Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Feng, > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > We updated draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang according to the comments #2 ~ > #7, while Xufeng and you had discussed about comment #1. > > Please review the draft, thanks a lot. > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-08.txt > > > > Good. I looked through the points #2-#7 and find that the work group have > understood and fixed those issues. #1 still remains to be resolved. I can > do a full re-review of the module once that one has been resolved as well. > Are there any outstanding questions on how to fix #1? > > > > Best Regards, > > /jan > > -- > > *Jan Lindblad*, janl@tail-f.com, +46 702855728 > > Solutions Architect, Business Development, Tail-f > > Tail-f is now a part of Cisco > > > > > > Feng > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Lindblad [mailto:janl@tail-f.com <janl@tail-f.com>] > > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 10:35 PM > > To: yang-doctors@ietf.org > > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; pim@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org > > Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07 > > > > Reviewer: Jan Lindblad > > Review result: On the Right Track > > > > This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07. In the > spring, I did an early review of the -02 version. > > > > Most of the comments from the earlier review are still valid. In some ways > the document has progressed since -02, in many it has not, and in a few it > has deteriorated. In my judgement, the document is not ready for last call. > Many fundamentally important questions are still unresolved. Here are my > review comments in rough falling order of importance. > > > > #1 Improper augment of /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > > > > Quoted from section 3.1: > > This model augments the core routing data model "ietf-routing" > > specified in [RFC8349]. The IGMP model augments "/rt:routing/ > > rt:control-plane-protocols" as opposed to augmenting "/rt:routing/ > > rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol", as the latter > > would allow multiple protocol instances, while the IGMP protocol is > > designed to be enabled or disabled as a single protocol instance on > > a network instance or a logical network element. > > > > The description above, and the actual augment statements in the YANG > module violate the principles described in RFC 8349, the ietf-routing.yang > module it augments. In RFC 8349, section 5.3. Control-Plane Protocol, the > proper way of augmenting the routing module is described. The fact that > this is a singleton protocol instance doesn't change this. Section 5.3 > describes singleton cases as well. > > > > Guofeng: Xufeng has discussed with Jan about the comment, and it is closed. > > > > #2 Incorrect vendor refinement model > > > > Quoted from section 2.2: > > For the same reason, wide constant ranges (for example, timer > > maximum and minimum) will be used in the model. It is expected that > > vendors will augment the model with any specific restrictions that > > might be required. Vendors may also extend the features list with > > proprietary extensions. > > > > This is not acceptable. The principle suggested does not foster > interoperability and useful standards. It is also not possible to do what > the paragraph suggests in YANG. This was pointed out in the -02 review, and > a suggestion was given there on how to address the problem. > > > > Guofeng: We removed the paragraph above, and put the values discussed by > Mcast Design Team. > > > > > > #3 Top level structures not optional > > > > Quoted from section 2.3: > > The current document contains IGMP and MLD as separate schema > > branches in the structure. The reason for this is to make it easier > > for implementations which may optionally choose to support specific > > address families. And the names of objects may be different between > > the IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD) address families. > > > > This problem was also pointed out in the -02 review. The author suggests > that implementing igmp and/or mld is optional. This is not reflected in the > YANG module, however. As currently modeled, both are currently mandatory to > implement. If-feature is used liberally in the module, and could be used > here as well. > > > > #4 Unclear meaning of optional leaves > > > > Quoted from section 3.1: > > Where fields are not genuinely essential to protocol operation, they > > are marked as optional. Some fields will be essential but have a > > default specified, so that they need not be configured explicitly. > > > > In fact, in the current version of the module, every leaf is optional > (except keys, which cannot be optional). It is good to see the addition of > defaults in many cases, but many unclear cases remain. E.g. leaf > /igmp/global/enable is of type boolean. I understand what true and false > implies for this leaf. But what does it mean if it is not set at all? > Either add a default or describe the meaning in the description. Similarly, > if the leaf version is not set on an igmp or mld interface, or on the > interface-global level, what does that mean? > > Add default. require-router-alert? explicit-tracking? exclude-lite? Many > of these are used in NP-containers inheriting all the from the root, which > makes the use of mandatory highly discouraged in the current form. If the > RFC 8349 augmentation principles are followed, the concern around mandatory > falls, and some leafs with no sensible default could be marked mandatory > instead. > > > > #5 All optional state > > > > All state data is optional, which means a conforming server could very > well decide not to implement it. E.g. discontinuity-time is optional. > Should a manager count on this being available? A situation where every > leaf is optional is as nice and flexible for server implementors as it is > frustrating and complicated for manager implementors to consume. A YANG > model is an API contract and should consider the needs of both sides. The > way this has been designed reveals that no representation for the consumer > side of this model has been involved in the design. I would suggest > thinking through what is the most essential state data for a manager, and > make some leafs mandatory. > > > > #6 Abundant copy-paste > > > > There is abundant repetition in the YANG module. leaf version is defined 2 > times for igmp with identical definitions, and two more for mld with > identical definitions. leaf enable is defined once for the interface > global-level, and with identical definition on the interface local level. > leaf last-member-query-interval, query-interval and half a dozen other > leaves are defined twice with identical definitions. > > > > #7 Leaf interface in the rpc clear*groups on line 1124, 1094 has type > string. > > Should be a leafref? Describe what values are valid. #8 Leaf group-policy, > source-policy on line 486, 527, 624, 689: type string. Should be leafref? > > Describe what values are valid. #9 Leaf group on line 705, 1101, 1131: Is > any > > ipv4/6 address ok, or only a multicast address? Model accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* pim [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org <pim-bounces@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Jan Lindblad > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:52 PM > *To:* Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > *Cc:* yang-doctors@ietf.org; ietf <ietf@ietf.org>; pim@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07 > > > > Xufeng, > > > > Thanks for the review and valuable comments. > > > > In regard to item #1, there was a discussion thread among the Yang > Doctors, authors of RFC 8349, and Routing Area Yang Architecture Design > Team, as attached below. The discussion occurred during the review of a > draft with the same issue as this one. > > > > I see, didn't know. Good. If this has been discussed to conclusion, then > you should of course go with that decision. > > > > As mentioned earlier, there are a few other singleton protocols mapped > into this structure, e.g. static. I think it would make sense to treat this > the same. Principle of least astonishment. > > > > Best Regards, > > /jan > > > > > > ================================ > > 原始邮件 > 发件人:XufengLiu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > 收件人:Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>Martin > Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > 抄送人:张征00007940;yang-doctors@ietf.org <yang-doctors@ietf.org> > 日 期 :2018年02月20日 22:30 > 主 题 :RE: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have > singlecontrol-plane-protocol instance > Using "" as the name is better, but I am not sure that it is good enough. > When we use ConfD to translate the model to a command line, if the option > "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is not used, we will have: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol type msdp name > ''" > > If the option "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is used, we will have: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol msdp ''" > > I am pretty sure that we would get a bug report on this, asking what is > the purpose to have: name ''", and requesting a suppression on the term, > but we do not have a good way to achieve. > > As a comparison, the option #3 will give: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols msdp > > This is the only acceptable solution so far. When a model is not usable by > the end-user, other considerations (such as augmentation convenience) will > not matter. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:35 PM > > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; Martin Bjorklund < > mbj@tail-f.com> > > Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; yang- > > doctors@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane- > > protocol instance > > > > > > > > On 2/19/18, 5:02 AM, "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> wrote: > > > > > > Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> All, > > >> > > >> As seems to be the modus operandi for YANG issues, we have 3 > separate > > opinions as to how a protocol only supporting a single instance should be > > realized. > > >> > > >> 1. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC > 8022BIS) > > >> and specify in the description text that only a single instance > is > > >> supported. > > >> 2. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC > 8022BIS) > > >> and use a YANG 1.1 must() restriction as discussed by Martin and > > >> Lada. > > >> 3. Augment the container one level up from the list for > singleton > > >> protocols (suggested by Xufeng). > > > > > But I think there was also a proposal to require the single > instance > > > to have a well-known name - but maybe this proposal is no longer on > > > the table. > > > > I actually liked this solution; however, instead of picking an > arbitrary "well- > > known" value for name, I would specify the 0 length string instead. I > think that > > reinforces the idea that this isn't actually a named instance. :) > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > > when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp') and rt:name = > ''" { > > container msdp { > > > > One benefit of this solution is that it solves Xufeng's issue of what > the client uses > > as the instance name. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > >> and #3. For #3, one determent would be that the control plane > protocols > > are in a location other than where they were originally envisioned and I > don't > > relish pulling RFC8022BIS off the RFC queue to document. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Acee > > >> > > >> On 2/15/18, 8:39 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Xufeng, > > >> > > >> I think the intent of 8022bis was to have all protocols under > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. I > agree that > > forcing a name for a single-instance is cumbersome, but I think it is > too late to > > change tree hierachy organization at this point. > > >> > > >> I will defer to other YDs and 8022bis authors on this. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Reshad. > > >> > > >> On 2018-02-08, 9:48 AM, "Xufeng Liu" <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> I feel that such a solution is still not clean enough to > outweigh the > > simple augmentation to "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/". > > >> > > >> Some considerations are: > > >> > > >> - Name management: Neither the operator nor the > implementation > > wants to deal with the artificial name, whether it is hardcoded, > user-configured, > > or system-generated. When we implement such singleton protocol, we don't > > save a name anywhere. > > >> - The complexity of validation: The "when" statement is an > > unnecessary expense to the user and to the implementation, especially if > we > > need to check all instances. > > >> - Data tree query: If the singleton "MSDP" is mixed with > other protocol > > instances, it is less obvious or harder to search for. Depending on the > > implementation, it would be worse if the entire list needs to be > iterated. > > >> - Tree hierarchy organization: I don't see too big a > problem with "all > > single-instance protocols under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > and all > > the multi-instance ones under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control- > > plane-protocol". If necessary, some of the names can be adjusted. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> - Xufeng > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com > ] > > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:41 AM > > >> > To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; Martin Bjorklund > <mbj@tail- > > f.com>; > > >> > Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> > > >> > Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; > Xufeng Liu > > >> > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > > >> > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have > single control- > > plane- > > >> > protocol instance > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the suggestions. I agree that hard-coding > the name is a > > bad idea, > > >> > glad that a cleaner way of doing this is possible. > > >> > - We can move the must statement up to restrict max of > 1 control- > > plane- > > >> > protocol instance of type msdp? > > >> > - Acee/Lada, should a note be added to section 5.3 of > 8022bis > > regarding how > > >> > to enforce single instance? How much of a concern is the > > performance > > >> > impact in this specific case? > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > Reshad. > > >> > > > >> > On 2018-02-08, 7:02 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" < > lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Bjorklund > wrote: > > >> > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> > > > Hi Lada, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On 2/8/18, 4:42 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of > Ladislav > > Lhotka" > > >> > <yang-docto > > >> > > rs-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 09:20 +0100, Martin > Bjorklund wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" < > rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi YDs, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > MSDP YANG authors want to enforce > single-instance of > > MSDP > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > control-plane protocol. The when > “rt:type = > > ‘msdp’“ allows > > >> > multiple > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > control-pane-protocol instances as long > as they have > > different > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > rt:name. The only workaround I thought > of is to have a > > when > > >> > > statement > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > on the name in the top level container. > This would still > > multiple > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > control-plane-protocol instance of type > msdp but > > restricts the > > >> > name > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > a fixed name (msdp-protocol in this > case) for the top level > > msdp > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > container to exist. Any suggestions on > how to do this > > better? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hard-coding a name like this is IMO a bad > idea. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Better would be to simply state in text > that there MUST > > only be one > > >> > > > > >> > > > > instance of this type. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > But you can also add a must statement > that enforces this: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > when 'derived-from-or-self(rt:type, > "msdp:msdp"' { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > container msdp { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > must 'count(/rt:routing/rt:control- > plane-protocols/' > > >> > > > > >> > > > > + ' > rt:control-plane-protocol[' > > >> > > > > >> > > > > + ' > derived-from-or-sel(../rt:type, "msdp:msdp")]) > > <= > > >> > > 1'"; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > In general, you should be careful with > the usage of "count", > > since it > > >> > > > > >> > > > > will loop through *all* instances in the > list every time. If > > the list > > >> > > > > >> > > > > is big, this can have a performance > impact. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Instead of count(), it is possible to use > the so-called > > Muenchian > > >> > > method: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > container msdp { > > >> > > > > >> > > > must "not(../preceding-sibling::rt: > control-plane- > > protocol[" > > >> > > > > >> > > > + "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, > 'msdp:msdp')])"; > > >> > > > > >> > > > .. > > >> > > > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > It basically states that the > control-plane-protocol containing > > the > > >> > > "msdp" > > >> > > > > >> > > > container must not be preceded with a > control-plane- > > protocol entry > > >> > of > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> > > > msdp:msdp type (or derived). > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > This looks like an elegant solution. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > "elegant" as in "less obvious" ;) It has the > same time complexity > > as > > >> > > the count() solution. > > >> > > > >> > It should be faster on the average - it has to scan > only preceding > > siblings of > > >> > the MSDP protocol instance whereas count() always > has to check > > *all* > > >> > protocol > > >> > instances. > > >> > > > >> > It is true though that in XSLT this technique can > be made > > considerably > > >> > more > > >> > efficient by using indexed keys. > > >> > > > >> > Lada > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > However, since the key for the > control-plane-protocol list is > > "type > > >> > > name", won't it only work if the previous sibling > has a "name" > > that > > >> > > is precedes the one being added? > > >> > > > > >> > > For each list entry that has this container, the > expression is > > >> > > evaluated. It will scan all preceding entries > and ensure that there > > >> > > are none with this type. So the order of the > entries doesn't > > matter; > > >> > > if there are two with the same type, one of them > has to be > > before the > > >> > > other. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > /martin > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > > > Acee > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Lada > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Also note that I use derived-from-or-self > instead of equality > > for the > > >> > > > > >> > > > > identity. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > /martin > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Reshad. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > when "rt:type = ‘msdp’" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "….”; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > } > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description "…."; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > container msdp { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > when "../rt:name = > ‘msdp-protocol’" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "…."; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > } > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description "MSDP top level > container."; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" < > rrahman@cisco.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25 > PM > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, > > >> > "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Cc: "anish.ietf@gmail.com" < > anish.ietf@gmail.com>, > > "Mahesh > > >> > Sivakumar > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>, > > "guofeng@huawei.com" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com>, > > "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, > > "liuyisong@huawei.com" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>, " > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > > >> > lucent.com" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>, > > >> > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>, "Acee > Lindem (acee)" > > >> > <acee@cisco.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the > modification of MSDP YANG > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Sandy and Xufeng, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I understand that you want only 1 MSDP > instance but I > > don’t think > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > justifies /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols. > If we do > > that we > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > will end up with all single-instance > protocols under > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > and all the multi- > > instance > > >> > > ones > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > under > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane- > > protocol. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I am not sure what’s the best way to > enforce single- > > instance, I can > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > check with the other YDs on this topic. > One way it can be > > done is > > >> > as > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > follows (I’ve added the when statement > in bold to > > existing BFD > > >> > > model), > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > it enforces that the protocol name is > ‘bfdv1’. So multiple > > >> > instances > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > with rt:type=bfd-types:bfdv1 could be > created, but only > > one of > > >> > these > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > instances can have the bfd container. > This is probably not > > the > > >> > best > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > way but the point is that IMO protocols > have to go under > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane- > > protocol. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Reshad. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > when "rt:type = > 'bfd-types:bfdv1'" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "This augmentation is only > valid for a control-plane > > >> > > protocol > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > instance of BFD (type > 'bfdv1')."; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > } > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description "BFD augmentation."; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > container bfd { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > when "../rt:name = 'bfdv1'" { > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > description > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "This augmentation is only > valid for a control-plane > > >> > > protocol > > >> > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > Cc: <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, < > yang-doctors@ietf.org> > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:01:55 -0500 > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single > control-plane-protocol instance > Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> As seems to be the modus operandi for YANG issues, we have 3 separate > opinions as to how a protocol only supporting a single instance should be > realized. > >> > >> 1. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS) > >> and specify in the description text that only a single instance is > >> supported. > >> 2. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS) > >> and use a YANG 1.1 must() restriction as discussed by Martin and > >> Lada. > >> 3. Augment the container one level up from the list for singleton > >> protocols (suggested by Xufeng). > > > But I think there was also a proposal to require the single instance > > to have a well-known name - but maybe this proposal is no longer on > > the table. > > I actually liked this solution; however, instead of picking an arbitrary > "well-known" value for name, I would specify the 0 length string instead. I > think that reinforces the idea that this isn't actually a named instance. :) > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp') and rt:name = ''" { > container msdp { > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > >> and #3. For #3, one determent would be that the control plane protocols > are in a location other than where they were originally envisioned and I > don't relish pulling RFC8022BIS off the RFC queue to document. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> On 2/15/18, 8:39 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Xufeng, > >> > >> I think the intent of 8022bis was to have all protocols under > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. I agree > that forcing a name for a single-instance is cumbersome, but I think it is > too late to change tree hierachy organization at this point. > >> > >> I will defer to other YDs and 8022bis authors on this. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Reshad. > >> > >> On 2018-02-08, 9:48 AM, "Xufeng Liu" <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I feel that such a solution is still not clean enough to > outweigh the simple augmentation to "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/". > >> > >> Some considerations are: > >> > >> - Name management: Neither the operator nor the implementation > wants to deal with the artificial name, whether it is hardcoded, > user-configured, or system-generated. When we implement such singleton > protocol, we don't save a name anywhere. > >> - The complexity of validation: The "when" statement is an > unnecessary expense to the user and to the implementation, especially if we > need to check all instances. > >> - Data tree query: If the singleton "MSDP" is mixed with other > protocol instances, it is less obvious or harder to search for. Depending > on the implementation, it would be worse if the entire list needs to be > iterated. > >> - Tree hierarchy organization: I don't see too big a problem > with "all single-instance protocols under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > and all the multi-instance ones under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol". If necessary, some of the names can > be adjusted. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> - Xufeng > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:41 AM > >> > To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; Martin Bjorklund < > mbj@tail-f.com>; > >> > Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> > >> > Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; Xufeng Liu > >> > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > >> > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single > control-plane- > >> > protocol instance > >> > > >> > Thanks for the suggestions. I agree that hard-coding the name > is a bad idea, > >> > glad that a cleaner way of doing this is possible. > >> > - We can move the must statement up to restrict max of 1 > control-plane- > >> > protocol instance of type msdp? > >> > - Acee/Lada, should a note be added to section 5.3 of 8022bis > regarding how > >> > to enforce single instance? How much of a concern is the > performance > >> > impact in this specific case? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Reshad. > >> > > >> > On 2018-02-08, 7:02 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >> > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > >> > > > Hi Lada, > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 2/8/18, 4:42 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of > Ladislav Lhotka" > >> > <yang-docto > >> > > rs-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 09:20 +0100, Martin > Bjorklund wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi YDs, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > MSDP YANG authors want to enforce > single-instance of MSDP > >> > > > >> > > > > > control-plane protocol. The when “rt:type = > ‘msdp’“ allows > >> > multiple > >> > > > >> > > > > > control-pane-protocol instances as long as > they have different > >> > > > >> > > > > > rt:name. The only workaround I thought of is > to have a when > >> > > statement > >> > > > >> > > > > > on the name in the top level container. This > would still multiple > >> > > > >> > > > > > control-plane-protocol instance of type msdp > but restricts the > >> > name > >> > > to > >> > > > >> > > > > > a fixed name (msdp-protocol in this case) for > the top level msdp > >> > > > >> > > > > > container to exist. Any suggestions on how to > do this better? > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hard-coding a name like this is IMO a bad idea. > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Better would be to simply state in text that > there MUST only be one > >> > > > >> > > > > instance of this type. > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > But you can also add a must statement that > enforces this: > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > >> > > > >> > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > >> > > > >> > > > > when 'derived-from-or-self(rt:type, > "msdp:msdp"' { > >> > > > >> > > > > container msdp { > >> > > > >> > > > > must 'count(/rt:routing/rt:control- > plane-protocols/' > >> > > > >> > > > > + ' rt:control-plane-protocol[' > >> > > > >> > > > > + ' derived-from-or-sel(../rt:type, > "msdp:msdp")]) <= > >> > > 1'"; > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > In general, you should be careful with the > usage of "count", since it > >> > > > >> > > > > will loop through *all* instances in the list > every time. If the list > >> > > > >> > > > > is big, this can have a performance impact. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Instead of count(), it is possible to use the > so-called Muenchian > >> > > method: > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > container msdp { > >> > > > >> > > > must "not(../preceding-sibling::rt: > control-plane-protocol[" > >> > > > >> > > > + "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, > 'msdp:msdp')])"; > >> > > > >> > > > .. > >> > > > >> > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > It basically states that the > control-plane-protocol containing the > >> > > "msdp" > >> > > > >> > > > container must not be preceded with a > control-plane-protocol entry > >> > of > >> > > the > >> > > > >> > > > msdp:msdp type (or derived). > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > This looks like an elegant solution. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > "elegant" as in "less obvious" ;) It has the same time > complexity as > >> > > the count() solution. > >> > > >> > It should be faster on the average - it has to scan only > preceding siblings of > >> > the MSDP protocol instance whereas count() always has to > check *all* > >> > protocol > >> > instances. > >> > > >> > It is true though that in XSLT this technique can be made > considerably > >> > more > >> > efficient by using indexed keys. > >> > > >> > Lada > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > However, since the key for the control-plane-protocol > list is "type > >> > > name", won't it only work if the previous sibling has > a "name" that > >> > > is precedes the one being added? > >> > > > >> > > For each list entry that has this container, the > expression is > >> > > evaluated. It will scan all preceding entries and > ensure that there > >> > > are none with this type. So the order of the entries > doesn't matter; > >> > > if there are two with the same type, one of them has to > be before the > >> > > other. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > /martin > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > Acee > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Lada > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Also note that I use derived-from-or-self > instead of equality for the > >> > > > >> > > > > identity. > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > /martin > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > > > > Reshad. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > >> > > > >> > > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > when "rt:type = ‘msdp’" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > description > >> > > > >> > > > > > "….”; > >> > > > >> > > > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > > description "…."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > container msdp { > >> > > > >> > > > > > when "../rt:name = ‘msdp-protocol’" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > description > >> > > > >> > > > > > "…."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > > description "MSDP top level container."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" < > rrahman@cisco.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25 PM > >> > > > >> > > > > > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, > >> > "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Cc: "anish.ietf@gmail.com" < > anish.ietf@gmail.com>, "Mahesh > >> > Sivakumar > >> > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>, " > guofeng@huawei.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com>, " > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, " > liuyisong@huawei.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>, " > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>, > >> > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>, "Acee Lindem > (acee)" > >> > <acee@cisco.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the modification > of MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Sandy and Xufeng, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I understand that you want only 1 MSDP > instance but I don’t think > >> > > that > >> > > > >> > > > > > justifies /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols. > If we do that we > >> > > > >> > > > > > will end up with all single-instance > protocols under > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols and > all the multi-instance > >> > > ones > >> > > > >> > > > > > under > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I am not sure what’s the best way to enforce > single-instance, I can > >> > > > >> > > > > > check with the other YDs on this topic. One > way it can be done is > >> > as > >> > > > >> > > > > > follows (I’ve added the when statement in > bold to existing BFD > >> > > model), > >> > > > >> > > > > > it enforces that the protocol name is > ‘bfdv1’. So multiple > >> > instances > >> > > > >> > > > > > with rt:type=bfd-types:bfdv1 could be > created, but only one of > >> > these > >> > > > >> > > > > > instances can have the bfd container. This is > probably not the > >> > best > >> > > > >> > > > > > way but the point is that IMO protocols have > to go under > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > > > > Reshad. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/" > >> > > > >> > > > > > + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > when "rt:type = 'bfd-types:bfdv1'" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > description > >> > > > >> > > > > > "This augmentation is only valid for > a control-plane > >> > > protocol > >> > > > >> > > > > > instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1')."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > > description "BFD augmentation."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > container bfd { > >> > > > >> > > > > > when "../rt:name = 'bfdv1'" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > description > >> > > > >> > > > > > "This augmentation is only valid > for a control-plane > >> > > protocol > >> > > > >> > > > > > instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1')."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > > description "BFD top level container."; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > From: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:38 AM > >> > > > >> > > > > > To: "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" < > zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" < > rrahman@cisco.com>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>, > "Mahesh > >> > Sivakumar > >> > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>, " > guofeng@huawei.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com>, " > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, " > liuyisong@huawei.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>, " > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>, > >> > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification > of MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Sandy, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the updates. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > In RFC8022bis, the rt:type is defined under > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. > >> > If > >> > > > >> > > > > > we augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols, > the “when” > >> > > > >> > > > > > statement will not be valid, because it > cannot find the rt:type. I > >> > > > >> > > > > > don’t think that we need the “when” > statement. The container > >> > with > >> > > > >> > > > > > “presence” will serve the purpose of the > identity. We can simply > >> > > take > >> > > > >> > > > > > out the “when” statement and the definition > of the MSDP identity. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Xufeng > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn [mailto: > zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn] > >> > > > >> > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:36 AM > >> > > > >> > > > > > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Cc: rrahman@cisco.com; anish.ietf@gmail.com; > >> > masivaku@cisco.com; > >> > > > >> > > > > > guofeng@huawei.com; > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com; > >> > > > >> > > > > > liuyisong@huawei.com; xu.benchong@zte.com.cn; > >> > > > >> > > > > > tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com; > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com > >> > > > >> > > > > > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification > of MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Xufeng and Reshad, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I am sorry for forgetting the point. I > updated the YANG model. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > If no one has comments on it I'd like to > submit the new version. :-) > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Sandy > >> > > > >> > > > > > 原始邮件 > >> > > > >> > > > > > 发件人: > >> > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com<mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > 收件人: <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrah > man@cisco.com>>; > >> > 张征00007940; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:a > nish.ietf@gmail.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com > >>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com > >>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@ > metaswitch.co > >> > > m>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:l > iuyisong@huawei.com>>;徐本 > >> > 崇10065053; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent. > >> > > com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto: > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > 日 期 :2018年02月03日 01:21 > >> > > > >> > > > > > 主 题 :RE: Hi all, about the modification of > MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Sandy and Reshad, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > The reason that we used to augment > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols, > instead of > >> > > > >> > > > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol, > >> > is > >> > > > >> > > > > > that we do not allow multiple instances of > MSDP. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Xufeng > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto: > rrahman@cisco.com] > >> > > > >> > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 12:08 PM > >> > > > >> > > > > > To: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto: > zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>; > >> > Xufeng > >> > > Liu > >> > > > >> > > > > > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com<mailto:X > ufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:an > ish.ietf@gmail.com>; Mahesh > >> > Sivakumar > >> > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku) > >> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com > >; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@ > metaswitch.com > >> > > >; > >> > > > >> > > > > > liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:li > uyisong@huawei.com>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto: > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.c > >> > > om>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto: > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the modification > of MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Sandy, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I don’t know what warning you are getting now > but from a quick > >> > look > >> > > at > >> > > > >> > > > > > the revision you sent I see couple of issues. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > identity msdp { > >> > > > >> > > > > > base "rt:routing-protocol"; <== > should be rt:control-plane- > >> > > protocol > >> > > > >> > > > > > description "MSDP"; > >> > > > >> > > > > > } > >> > > > >> > > > > > <snip> > >> > > > >> > > > > > /* > >> > > > >> > > > > > * Data nodes > >> > > > >> > > > > > */ > >> > > > >> > > > > > augment > >> > > > >> > > > > > "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane- > >> > > protocol" { > >> > > > >> > > > > > when "rt:type = 'MSDP'" { <== should > be "rt:type = > >> > > 'msdp:msdp'" > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > HTH, > >> > > > >> > > > > > Reshad. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > From: > >> > "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto: > zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Date: Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:37 AM > >> > > > >> > > > > > To: "xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:x > ufeng_liu@jabil.com>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:x > ufeng_liu@jabil.com>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:a > nish.ietf@gmail.com>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:a > nish.ietf@gmail.com>>, "Mahesh > >> > > Sivakumar > >> > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" > >> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com > >" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com > >>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@ > metaswitch.co > >> > > m>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@ > metaswitch.co > >> > > m>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:l > iuyisong@huawei.com>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:l > iuyisong@huawei.com>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto: > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto: > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent. > >> > > com>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent. > >> > > com>>, > >> > > > >> > > > > > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto: > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto: > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" > >> > > > >> > > > > > <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > Subject: FW: Hi all, about the modification > of MSDP YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I deleted some groupings and make the model > more clear. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > And I updated the decription of (peer-as, > up-time, expire). Please > >> > > > >> > > > > > review it. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > A warning is still existing about rt:type: > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 5, - augment of control-plane-protocols is > incorrect. There should > >> > > be > >> > > > >> > > > > > an identity msdp with > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > base "rt:routing-protocol" and then augment > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol" > >> > > > >> > > > > > with a when > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > statement. Take a look at OSPF YANG for an > example. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added the identity and modify the > augmentation, but it > >> > > seems > >> > > > >> > > > > > like there is no MSDP register in rt:type. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > How can we register it? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Sandy > >> > > > >> > > > > > 原始邮件 > >> > > > >> > > > > > 发件人:张征00007940 > >> > > > >> > > > > > 收件人: <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:x > ufeng_liu@jabil.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:a > nish.ietf@gmail.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com > >>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com > >>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@ > metaswitch.co > >> > > m>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:l > iuyisong@huawei.com>>;徐本 > >> > 崇10065053; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- > >> > lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent. > >> > > com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto: > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > 抄送人: <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrah > man@cisco.com>>; > >> > > > >> > > > > > 日 期 :2018年01月29日 17:04 > >> > > > >> > > > > > 主 题 :Hi all, about the modification of MSDP > YANG > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > YANG doctor Reshad had finished the early > review about MSDP > >> > YANG. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I finished the preliminary modification > version, please review it. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > I think some advices from Reshad should be > discussed: > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 1, - Not sure why peer-as is needed. Don't > see it in RFC3618. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 2, - leaf up-time, what's meant by "up time" > in the description? Is > >> > > it > >> > > > >> > > > > > time it's > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > been created? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 3, - description for leaf expire seems wrong. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: These items (peer-as, up-time, > expire) doesn't existed in > >> > > > >> > > > > > RFC3618, are these unnecessary? Please write > down your > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > description if you insist on it. If nobody > insist on it, should we > >> > > > >> > > > > > delete them? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 4, - Groupings are used for data which is > used only once. Is this > >> > > done > >> > > > >> > > > > > on purpose or > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > was the intention to use those groupings more > than once? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: These eight groupings are used only > once, should we > >> > change > >> > > > >> > > > > > them to container? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > authentication-container; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > global-config-attributes; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > peer-config-attributes; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > peer-state-attributes; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > sa-cache-state-attributes; > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > statistics-container > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > statistics-error > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > statistics-queue > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 5, - augment of control-plane-protocols is > incorrect. There should > >> > > be > >> > > > >> > > > > > an identity msdp with > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > base "rt:routing-protocol" and then augment > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane- > protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol" > >> > > > >> > > > > > with a when > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > statement. Take a look at OSPF YANG for an > example. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added the identity and modify the > augmentation, but it > >> > > seems > >> > > > >> > > > > > like there is no MSDP register in rt:type. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > How can we register it? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Most of the suggestion is adopted. The > modification detail pls see > >> > > > >> > > > > > below: > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Too many features (17)! Every piece of > config has an if-feature > >> > > > >> > > > > > - statement. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Some of the configs (timers?) should be part > of most/basic > >> > > > >> > > > > > implementations, for > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > other config (e.g. authentication) I can see > why a feature would > >> > be > >> > > > >> > > > > > used. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Modified the three timers > (connect-retry, hold, keepalive) > >> > > to > >> > > > >> > > > > > fixed format. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > -“import ietf-yang-types” should have a > reference to RFC6991 > >> > (see > >> > > > >> > > > > > -section 4.7 of > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > rfc6087bis-15) > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - “import ietf-inet-types” should have a > reference to RFC6991 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - “import ietf-routing” should have a > reference to RFC8022 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - “import ietf-interfaces” should have a > reference to RFC7223 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - "import ietf-ip" should have a reference to > RFC7277 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - "import ietf-key-chain" should have a > reference to RFC8177 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added all the references above. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - organization s/"...PIM( Protocols for IP > Multicast ) Working > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Group"/"...PIM (Protocols for IP Multicast) > Working Group"? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Remove WG Chairs from contact information > as per Appendix C > >> > of > >> > > > >> > > > > > - rfc6087bis-15 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - No copyright in the module description, see > Appendix of > >> > 6087bis-15 > >> > > for > >> > > > >> > > > > > - a module description > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > example > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Module description must contain reference > to RFC, see > >> > Appendix C > >> > > of > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > rfc6087bis-15 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Removed WG chairs and add copyright > from Appendix of > >> > > > >> > > > > > rfc6087bis. Added reference to RFC3618. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - grouping authentication-container. > key-chain and password > >> > both > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > use if-feature peer-key-chain. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Removed the if-feature > peer-key-chain from password. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - grouping connect-source. The name is not > very > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > descriptive. Should this be something along > the lines of > >> > > > >> > > > > > tcp-connection-source? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Changed the name "connect-source" to > "tcp-connection- > >> > > source". > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - grouping global-state-attributes has nothing > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Deleted the grouping. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Some of the descriptions are > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > pretty terse. e.g. for rpf-peer it says "RPF > peer.". In a case like > >> > > > >> > > > > > this > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > consider adding more descriptive text or a > reference to the > >> > proper > >> > > > >> > > > > > section in > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > RFC3618 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added more description. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - peer-as (Autonomous System Number) is > defined as type string, > >> > > should > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > be of type as-number in ietf-inet-types? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Modified to inet types. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - keepalive-interval depends on > holdtime-interval. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > There should be "if-feature > peer-timer-holdtime" under leaf > >> > > > >> > > > > > keepalive-interval > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > or change the must statement to (assuming we > keep the 2 > >> > features): > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > must "(not ../holdtime-interval) or (. > 1 > and . < > >> > > > >> > > > > > ../holdtime-interval)". > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Modified the features to fixed > format. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - leaf up-time: s/sa cache/SA cache/ > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - leaf peer-learned-from, change description > from "The address > >> > of > >> > > peer > >> > > > >> > > > > > - that we learned > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > this SA from ." to "The address of the peer > that we learned this SA > >> > > > >> > > > > > from." > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Modified. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - RPC leaf group, I thought we had a type for > IP multicast address? > >> > > If > >> > > > >> > > > > > - not, it should be done? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Yes. Added the rt-type reference to > RFC8294. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - s/msdp/MSDP/ > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - In rpc msdp-clear-peer, s/Clears the > session to the peer./Clears > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > the TCP connection to the peer./ > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - In rpc msdp-clear-sa-cache, why have the > enum '*' for > >> > > > >> > > > > > - source-addr. Can't the same technique as > for peer-address be > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > used? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - msdp prefix not needed in rpc names > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Done. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - MSDP peers are configured in a mesh-group, > did the authors > >> > > consider > >> > > > >> > > > > > - adding state per mesh-group, e.g. all the > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > peers in a particular mesh-group? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: IMO it is unnecessary because the > states of peers is not > >> > > > >> > > > > > unified in a mesh-group. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > General: > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Per Appendix B of rfc6087bis-15: "that all > YANG modules > >> > containing > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > imported items are cited as normative > reference". So RFCs 6991, > >> > > 7223, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > 7277, 8022 and 8177 should be included in the > normative > >> > reference > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > section. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Section 3 "the irrelevant information", add > a > >> > > reference/explanation > >> > > > >> > > > > > - for what > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > the irrelevant information is. s/the > irrelevant > >> > > information/irrelevant > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > information/? > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Changed the description. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Section 5 should give a brief description > of what the RPCs do. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added some description. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Section 6 any plans for notifications? If > not, just say so. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Done. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Need Security > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Considerations, see sections 3.7 and 6 of > rfc6087bis-15 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added security consideration section. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Need IANA Considerations, see section 3.8 > of rfc6087bis-15 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added IANA considerations. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > - Need license in YANG module, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > see appendix B of rfc6087bis-15 > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > [Sandy]: Added the YANG module description. > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Sandy > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > > >> > > > > yang-doctors mailing list > >> > > > >> > > > > yang-doctors@ietf.org > >> > > > >> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/ > listinfo/yang-doctors > >> > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > >> > > > Ladislav Lhotka > >> > > > >> > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > >> > > > >> > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > > >> > > > yang-doctors mailing list > >> > > > >> > > > yang-doctors@ietf.org > >> > > > >> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/ > listinfo/yang-doctors > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > -- > >> > Ladislav Lhotka > >> > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > >> > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > yang-doctors mailing list > > yang-doctors@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors > > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > yang-doctors@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors > > > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > yang-doctors@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors > >
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Andy Bierman
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Andy Bierman
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Andy Bierman
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Andy Bierman
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support? Martin Bjorklund