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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 31 July 2017 18:57 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 4501C13278E; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 aaF7F6mnbV3T; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7CB131C2A; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15564; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501527413; x=1502737013; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=jxcD8zW7a5tr9sQqSSUnQg0hOaM3MTdqYYVZC8+mHu8=; b=DhunR2CtH1DVVE+VdtB+sp9MqwlEUnDn6Cq/Q61ijcN1TpXkDccsNArD OiNmQ5kL9lRc6nl9gpEsc3BGbzjr9AiuDYoO+MhbSZVcAcd2z3jaJnsc8 t6L3W7MrGJ8ggwvoDaLtbSpCNYj3CPAvo6eoW5PQc+1KTara6ILXA4rKz 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DNAADlfH9Z/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkgRQHjgaPeYFriDGNWg6CBCyFGwIag24/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRgBAQEBAyMRRQwEAgEIDgMEAQEBAgIjAwICAh8RFAEICAIEAQ0FihcDFRCuH?= =?us-ascii?q?YImhy4NhAkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuCHYhVgldQgRoBEgE2gny?= =?us-ascii?q?CYQWJfpU1PAKHTYcbTIRxggwZPoR7il+MG4lWAR84fwt3FR+FQByBZgF2h3ENF?= =?us-ascii?q?weBBYEOAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,304,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="275055159"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jul 2017 18:56:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6VIuqIc023650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:56:52 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:56:51 -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; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:56:51 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
CC: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "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///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YCAAX70gIAC3ooAgADASYCAAH0vAA==
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:56:51 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A4CE19.BB701%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> <D5A01A7B.BA49E%acee@cisco.com> <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.com> <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B5388E1@dfweml501-mbx> <0CF89DCC-4DC1-414C-8D13-51106B10D6F7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0CF89DCC-4DC1-414C-8D13-51106B10D6F7@gmail.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: [10.24.24.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <18BBAB27C88236438F5D6145AEF5B540@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/HX5dJBci5fmvdANRl_1udGaBeU0>
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:57:00 -0000

Hi Mahesh, 

On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>;
wrote:

>Yingzhen,
>
>Overall the model looks good to me.
>
>I notice that you decided to (re)define the enable flag in the model. Is
>that intentional?
>
>You are aware that there is another grouping called client-base-cfg-parms
>that defines the enabled flag. I am not a particular fan of this split,
>but I am told that some client protocols just need the enable flag
>without the rest of the parameters of client-cfg-parms. If the split is
>confusing, we can collapse the enabled flag into client-cfg-parms.

I don’t add ‘enabled’ to the client-cfg-parms? Then a client would only
need a single grouping.

Thanks,
Acee 

>
>Thanks.
>
>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Please see attached ospf bfd module. Base ospf module also needs to be
>>updated to remove the bfd enable leaf. ISIS model need to do the same
>>change, ietf-isis-bfd.yang will look the same as ietf-ospf-bfd.yang.
>> 
>> Please let me know your commetns.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yingzhen
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM
>> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>;
>> Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>;; Yingzhen Qu
>><yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;; Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;;
>>rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org;
>>draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
>> 
>> Would it not be better to call bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms something
>>like bfd-grouping-client-cfg-params or more simply client-cfg-params. We
>>know it is a grouping and we know it is a bfd grouping. Why repeat?
>> 
>>> On Jul 27, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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/iet
>>>>> f-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/yan
>>>>>>>>>> g/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>;; 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/
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang>
>
>Mahesh Jethanandani
>mjethanandani@gmail.com
>