Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Inline <RR2>.
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 8:46 AM
> *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *The IESG <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16:
> (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review, please see inline <RR>.
>
> On 2018-07-04, 6:33 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: No Objection
>
>     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>     introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>     Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Rich version of this review at:
>     https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374
>
>
>
>     COMMENTS
>     S 2.1.4.
>     >              Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets.
>     >
>     >   2.1.4.  MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels
>     >
>     >      For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel
> since
>     >      the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the
> MPLS-TE
>
>     "parameters are"
>
> <RR> Change made, will be in the next rev.
>
>     S 2.8.
>     >
>     >   2.8.  BFD over LAG hierarchy
>     >
>     >      A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in
> control-plane-protocol.
>     >      The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG
> session
>     >      is under this "lag" node.
>
>     There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is
>     it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common?
>
>     <RR> There is replication in that the different modules have similar
> information as you pointed out. But this is done via groupings, so the
> information such as number of sessions, number of sessions up etc is
> defined once and used in multiple locations.
>
>
>
> Yes, but can't you incorporate the definitions by references so that the
> diagrams are easier to read?
>
>
>
> <RR2> The pyang tool does this for real references (leafref) but not in
> the grouping case (which is reuse and not reference). Even though there is
> replication in the tree diagrams, I believe there is benefit in seeing the
> complete tree for each module.
>

Well, this is a comment so you're free to ignore it, but IMO it makes it
very hard to read these.

-Ekr


>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
>
>