Re: [Rift] RIFT YANG datamodel implementation

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：rift@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年03月10日 19:29
主 题 ：Re: [Rift] RIFT YANG datamodel implementation

_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
RIFT@ietf.org
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? 

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? 
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.

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.

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

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

 | | +--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.
Thanks,
Sandy

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:55 PM Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com> wrote:

I did not attend yesterday's RIFT working group meeting for IETF 110 live, but I did just finish watching the video recording.

At offset 21:17 in the video there is a question about whether my RIFT-Python open source implementation has implemented the proposed YANG data model. The answer is that I have not actually implemented the YANG data model, so I won't be able to submit an implementation report.

I did very carefully review the YANG data model. I checked which of the attributes in the YANG data model could be supported by my implementation (or any other reasonable implementation). And also, based on the attributes that are reported / configurable in the open source code I made suggestions about adding new attributes to the YANG data model. My comments on the YANG data model are based “on real implementation” in that narrow sense, it is not based on actually implementing the YANG data model.

-- Bruno

_______________________________________________
 RIFT mailing list
 RIFT@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift