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: A0DNAADlfH9Z/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1pkgRQHjgaPeYFriDGNWg6CBCyFGwIag24/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRgBAQEBAyMRRQwEAgEIDgMEAQEBAgIjAwICAh8RFAEICAIEAQ0FihcDFRCuHYImhy4NhAkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuCHYhVgldQgRoBEgE2gnyCYQWJfpU1PAKHTYcbTIRxggwZPoR7il+MG4lWAR84fwt3FR+FQByBZgF2h3ENFweBBYEOAQEB
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 >
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Ashesh Mishra
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt t petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Greg Mirsky