Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A18131F0F; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 sOf2jAWKaFmb; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916DB131F08; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11500; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501209295; x=1502418895; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zrqjxgZ6s7bHAMXa+6Whpn5K9qq27kiCZx+jzDfQwvg=; b=c+yByCV6SZnxvpkB5FXh9ghi/7ZgBeI5su590yXJcYGf0b2bXdxVWrRD o5OMPiLjGQqUtMSr6xrMtA9U7XkUfG0knFNO9wbbWXFkclxjdoeCbVVgg 4SL8Ot7I7BrdyhbmNbujr8ps5KYgmNIjmbBS21IXp5bKN7YB51I+V7mgb I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DBAABaonpZ/4gNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaRY5YKDoIELoUZAhqDSz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDIxFFDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIwFAEICAIEAQ0Fii8Qr1mCJotAAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELgh2IUoMmgRoBEgEfF4J8gmEFn2YCh02MVoI?= =?us-ascii?q?MV4R7il6VcQEfOH8LdxUfhUAcgWYBdodCDRcHgQWBDgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,423,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="460816048"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jul 2017 02:34:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6S2YrIr016320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 02:34:54 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:34:52 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:34:52 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS8drqXiPB9yzw8Uyz6SEnSzAzYaJFxYCAgBeSvYCAAT4qwIAGf4+AgAMdioCAABQjAP//8hkAgAASYgD///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YA=
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 02:34:52 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A01A7B.BA49E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <149885255897.4584.3006333522740435620@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170705162103.GQ2289@pfrc.org> <D596866E.2C3552%rrahman@cisco.com> <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B5227CF@dfweml501-mbb> <D59904F6.2C51B4%rrahman@cisco.com> <D59FB0AD.BA38A%acee@cisco.com> <D59FB38C.2CE83D%rrahman@cisco.com> <D59FB594.BA3A0%acee@cisco.com> <D59FB7D2.2CE8F1%rrahman@cisco.com> <D59FB934.BA3C3%acee@cisco.com> <D59FBE2A.2CEA06%rrahman@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D59FBE2A.2CEA06%rrahman@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6C858B8AD2D3DE4C9057E99AD1FE74B2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/3f2SqnfBa6FR0HsOka2Ll_o84H8>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 02:34:58 -0000

Hi Reshad, 

Ok - I see now. I was looking at the wrong xxxx-base-cfg-parms groupings.
Fewer similar grouping and modules will be better ;^)

Thanks,
Acee

On 7/27/17, 9:03 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>What I see @ 
>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-bfd-
>t
>ypes.yang:
>1) bfd-client-base-cfg-parms has leaf enabled only. BTW this grouping is
>defined twice, this will be fixed when I get rid of ietf-bfd-clients.yang
>2) bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has multiplier/timers.
>
>Let me get rid of the client module and have everything in the types
>module.
>
>I am not sure why you’re not seeing something different.
>
>Regards,
>Reshad.
>
>
>
>On 2017-07-27, 3:40 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Reshad, 
>>
>>On 7/27/17, 3:35 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Acee,
>>>
>>>1) I’ll see if others chime in on this but I am fine with having the
>>>client grouping in ietf-bfd-types.yang.
>>>2) bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms has much more than just the
>>>multiplier/timers that the IGPs need. It also has BFD specific stuff
>>>(demand-mode, BFD auth) which IMO has no business outside of BFD.
>>
>>Agreed. 
>>
>>
>>>bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has only the multiplier/timers.
>>
>>Perhaps, the addition of multiplier/timers to bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms
>>isn’t pushed to GitHub yet. This version
>>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-bfd
>>-
>>t
>>ypes.yang only has the enabled leaf.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Acee 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Reshad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 2017-07-27, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Reshad, 
>>>>
>>>>On 7/27/17, 3:19 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Acee,
>>>>>
>>>>>When we met we agreed to have a new model for clients. Afterwards I
>>>>>decided to create a new types module, and still went ahead with the
>>>>>clients module. I am fine with having everything in the types module
>>>>>(no
>>>>>client module).
>>>>
>>>>Although I don’t feel that strongly - I just don’t see that putting the
>>>>client config params in wrappers provides any benefit. As for
>>>>detriments,
>>>>it requires more one more local modules for validation and one more
>>>>level
>>>>of indirection to see what we are really allowing to be configured.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not sure I fully understand your comment/question on
>>>>>bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms/bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms. The reason we
>>>>>have
>>>>>2 groupings is that some protocols may decide to have just the enable
>>>>>leaf
>>>>>and others may also want the multiplier/timer.
>>>>
>>>>The bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms grouping should use
>>>>bfd-types:bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms rather than
>>>>bfd-types:bfd-client-base-cfg-parms - no? This would be more obvious
>>>>w/o
>>>>the client module.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Acee 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Reshad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 2017-07-27, 3:07 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Reshad, 
>>>>>>Why do we need a new YANG model for clients? Why can’t they just use
>>>>>>ietf-bfd-types.yang? I’d like to avoid the unnecessary levels of
>>>>>>indirection. In fact, it looks wrong to me since the grouping
>>>>>>bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms uses the grouping
>>>>>>bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms
>>>>>>which only contains the enabled leaf. I believe you meant to use
>>>>>>bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms in the other new model. However, I
>>>>>>don’t
>>>>>>see
>>>>>>any reason why client shouldn’t use this directly.
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Acee 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 7/25/17, 2:33 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Yingzhen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The grouping is available @
>>>>>>>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/iet
>>>>>>>f
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>b
>>>>>>>f
>>>>>>>d
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>lients.yang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you¹d like changes to the grouping, send me an email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>Reshad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 2017-07-21, 12:22 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi Reshad,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks for the summary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Both ospf and isis models will make corresponding changes when the
>>>>>>>>new
>>>>>>>>BFD grouping is available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>>Yingzhen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com]
>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:19 AM
>>>>>>>>To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>rg>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We (BFD and OSPF YANG authors) had a discussion yesterday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The agreement is that since IGP peers are auto-discovered, we want
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>add
>>>>>>>>back the basic BFD config (multiplier + intervals) in IGP via a
>>>>>>>>grouping.
>>>>>>>>BFD will provide that grouping in a specific YANG module. IGP BFD
>>>>>>>>YANG
>>>>>>>>will be in a separate module (separate from the main IGP module).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>Reshad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 2017-07-05, 12:21 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
>>>>>>>><rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks authors for the edits on the BFD yang module.  This gets us
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>significant step closer to alignment with the rest of IETF for
>>>>>>>>>network
>>>>>>>>>instancing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'd like to encourage the working group to provide feedback on
>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>>issue and also the changes in the module.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As noted in another thread, we still have to figure out how to
>>>>>>>>>deal
>>>>>>>>>with accommodating interaction of the BFD yang module with client
>>>>>>>>>protocols.
>>>>>>>>>For
>>>>>>>>>example, the IGPs.  In particular, how do you configure the
>>>>>>>>>properties
>>>>>>>>>of the BFD sessions that may be dynamically instantiated based on
>>>>>>>>>control protocol activity?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-- Jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:55:59PM -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>>>>>>>>>Internet-Drafts
>>>>>>>>>>directories.
>>>>>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding
>>>>>>>>>>Detection
>>>>>>>>>>of the IETF.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>         Title           : YANG Data Model for Bidirectional
>>>>>>>>>>Forwarding
>>>>>>>>>>Detection (BFD)
>>>>>>>>>>         Authors         : Reshad Rahman
>>>>>>>>>>                           Lianshu Zheng
>>>>>>>>>>                           Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>>>>>>>>                           Santosh Pallagatti
>>>>>>>>>>                           Greg Mirsky
>>>>>>>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
>>>>>>>>>> 	Pages           : 59
>>>>>>>>>> 	Date            : 2017-06-30
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>>    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
>>>>>>>>>>configure
>>>>>>>>>>    and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06
>>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>submission  until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>>>>>>>>>tools.ietf.org.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>