Re: [pim] Apply for WGLC about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 21 December 2018 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 4319E12D84D for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:37:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 GCSQQ8cDHU3I for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (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 06F2D130DE0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 01:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8A23EB2; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:37:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1545385020; bh=BKx3OvYQ8Zn1bckK4xdg/SjdVhwKtjynj8nHjNHIko4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kw4JpPrJN6aHbpFsu2Ba/N0fj3CPN4jYg0zbqCBli9XMNjpjFYk1c+bX6CTmRvMut fQgpN/Dp6AgapRXdx7bIKQ/PFHu73lKBDzzgyxnKBN5Nmx6QMlTpnLmdXfMUdVm1Vj qLmSOopRW9FWf8mOvRzMo6qOcuJd6/CCxv+685f4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866D5B0; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:37:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:37:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Michael McBride <Michael.McBride@huawei.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB419267D6E06028E8FC1615E196B80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812211029580.3757@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <VI1PR07MB41929655CC0AD35AC4F46EE196BD0@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812201148160.3869@uplift.swm.pp.se> <VI1PR07MB4192C5D503B8FEA0062CFC3C96B80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812210747430.3869@uplift.swm.pp.se> <VI1PR07MB419267D6E06028E8FC1615E196B80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/vRrAVvV6mBvZ5t2HZFDeiqMF6Z4>
Subject: Re: [pim] Apply for WGLC about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang
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: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:37:06 -0000

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018, Hongji Zhao wrote:

> Hi Mikael,
>
> This is a "mandatory true", it means all the dynamic groups need expire. The group(who is read-only)  list only includes dynamic groups.
> I suppose it won't be a statically configured group.
>
> Do you think it should not be "mandatory true"?  OR the group (who is read-only) should include the statically configured group?

I believe operational data should show all groups currently being handled, 
regardless if they're statically configured or not. I want to be able to 
see other aspects of them, so it would be a bad idea if they were omitted 
from the list just because they're statically configured.

Minimum change could be to either remove the "mandatory true;" and say 
that groups without known expiry time doesn't report this value, or one 
could say that uint32 max value means "infinity". There could be other 
ways.

I have no strong opinion how to handle this, but I'd like to see it 
defined in the model how to handle statically configured groups with 
no defined expiry time.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se