Re: [Rift] RIFT YANG datamodel implementation

[[e-mail]]

Hi Tony, 


Thank you very much for your quick response! 


I have some further questions, please find my question below with Sandy1>.


Thanks, 


Sandy







原始邮件



发件人：TonyPrzygienda
收件人：张征00007940;
抄送人：[e-mail];Bruno Rijsman;
日 期 ：2021年03月16日 18:20
主 题 ：Re: [Rift] RIFT YANG datamodel implementation


_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift






On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:29 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:


Hi tony, 


Sorry for the late response. 


Thank you very much for your detailed review! 


About you comments, could you please find my comments/question below with Sandy>?


Much appreciate for it.


Best regards,


Sandy



原始邮件


发件人：TonyPrzygienda
收件人：Bruno Rijsman;
抄送人：[e-mail];
日 期 ：2021年03月10日 19:29
主 题 ：Re: [Rift] RIFT YANG datamodel implementation

_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift


Just reviewed stuff carefully as well (also based on _real_ implemenation ;-) but not Yang implementation). comment on -02  



 +--ro hierarchy-indications? enumeration



that's bit more complex, we're lacking 


    leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures = 1,

which should be configurable

Sandy> The type of "hierarchy-indications" is enumeration, and "leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures" is included in it. Now the leaf is not configurable, do you mean this leaf should be changed to configurable? 










yes, you want to be able to configure that 

 





also, observe that level == 24 that can be configued is NOT equivalent to top-of-fabric which is a special flag

so 


 leaf configured-level { type level; description "The configured level value of this node."; }

should be something much more complex around a union of 

tof
leaf-only
leaf-with-leaf-2-leaf 

numeric

Sandy> I'd like to add more description: "The value '0' indicates leaf-only, the value "1" indicates leaf-with-leaf-2-leaf, and the value "2' indicates tof." Do you think it's OK? 





well, you can do that but it's really an enum where the value should not matter

Sandy1> The "hierarchy-indications" and "configured-level" are both indicate the node's level. The "hierarchy-indications" isn't configurable because it's the actual node level. 

The "configured-level" it the configured level which can be set by network administrator. I'd like to keep the "hierarchy-indications" non-configurable. 

And the two leaves use the same enumeration type and values. The value includes the above three types or any other type.

Do you think it's OK?

But I have a question about it, it seems like we are not define the range of level value. If the maximum level value needs be defined?

 


then 

overload 

in configuration sense should be 

overload { 
status: true/false
timeout: optional timeout on config element 

} 

so I'd split between configured-overload and in-overload or just overload 
Sandy> What's the meaning of "timeout"? Now in the model, the local "overload" is configurable, the "overload" in node TIE isn't configurable.










timeout is used very often. Basically there should be 2 timeouts 


on-startup 


this means node goes into overload until this tiemr expires when starting up 


immediate 


it means, set overload (but not on startup, right when configure) and remove after timeout expired


Sandy1>  Please review my understanding to check if it's right: "on-startup" and "immediate" are value of "yang:date-and-time" type which is configurable. The router will go into overload status when the two parameters expired in different situation. But the two parameters only take effect when the "overload" is set to true.



if we allow to configure maximum nonce delta we should probably also allow to configure lifetime delta (both are pretty dangerous since they can break convergence real fast) 

+--rw holdtime?

should be global-holdtime 
Sandy> OK.










ack





since that can be ultimately per link 

same for tide generation 

 +--rw tie-security-key-id? uint32

that should refer to standard yang security chain as e.g. OSPF uses 

that should be also originating-key-id or something since we need (missing right now) the keys we are willing to accept as RW 
Sandy> May I change this to the following, it's borrowed from OSPF YANG model. The crypto-algorithm has many types, does RIFT support all of them, or just some of them?
 | | | | +--rw tie-security | | | | +--:(auth-key-chain)? | | | | | +--rw key-chain? | | | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref | | | | +--:(auth-key-explicit) | | | | +--rw key-id? uint32 | | | | +--rw key? string | | | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? | | | | identityref
on acceptance we need following variants

SecurityChecking {
 NoChecking,
 Permissive,
 Loose,
 Strict,
}
Sandy> OK.









ack 




same @ link level for the security keys
Sandy> OK. Once you confirm the security key format, it will be syned to interface. 









ack, basically keep to whatever OSPF does,. I thought ACee abstracted the whole keychain IGP stuff and we should use that 






look @ YAML model we use in open source RIFT to see further details 

own pod missing 
Sandy> The "pod" is the fourth leaf in node, please check it agin, do I make some mistakes?









maybe I missed 







@ interface level

what is 

 +--ro hal? level 

it seems backwards, HAL is of level type, no? 
Sandy> The "HAL" is "The highest defined level value seen from all valid level offers received." Does the description need to be improved?









well, name the node HAL and the type is level

Sandy1> OK. It will be renamed to ""node-HAL".

 


also list of HAL systemid offers is helpful here 
Sandy> OK. I can add the systemid which offer the level.









yepp, there maybe multiple




Sandy1> OK.  A systemid list will be added for it. 

Thanks,

Sandy




also on link add instance-name 
Sandy> Do you mean the RIFT instance name? The whole model is following an instance, so the interface is also belong the same instance with the node. Different instances are distinguished by the node. 
DATABASE

 | +--ro (type)? | | +--:(prefix) | | +--:(positive-disaggregation) | | +--:(negative-disaggregation) | | +--:(external) | | +--:(positive-external-disaggregation) | | +--:(pgp)
oder strictly per thrift model since order has meaning here 
Sandy> OK. I'll modify the order according to section 8.2.28.1.










ack





 | | +--ro link-id-pair* [remote-id] | | | +--ro local-id? uint32 | | | +--ro remote-id uint32 | | | +--ro if-index? uint32 Rijsman, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RIFT YANG Model February 2021 | | | +--ro if-name? if:interface-ref | | +--ro cost? uint32 | | +--ro bandwidth? uint32 | | +--ro flood-reduction? boolean | | +--ro received-link-capabilities | | +--ro bfd? boolean | | +--ro v4-forwarding-capable? boolean

missing 

   14: optional set<common.AddressFamilyType> 
       (python.immutable = "")                address_families;
Sandy> OK. I'll add it.










ack