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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 27 July 2017 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@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 4D7BA12F290; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:35:35 -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 FVLGIVIcTL2j; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A921287A5; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8770; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501184132; x=1502393732; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zgaL46eYbPeHkwHIBCRU+4w1q0WNYO4F2d8arcUIEAE=; b=PNxa8Pa+rBIYSyvlWgAU+y/BLNYOB1ogbM+cW3i7HpOpowggSH613eLM Xu1UgfdkJKgGWiEP0bGhQwagFqmD1MJASr0Vm+yiTCn6PrflpaTuNrTn6 UcVMh5RYU4Q0yHxj+KZhvuvnGkjUqoUchhrShVbDiA2MlxN9HHY4CsozJ M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CbAACqP3pZ/5RdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaRYpYKDoIELIUbAhqDSz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDNEUMBAIBCBEEAQEBBCMFAgIwFAkIAgQBDQWKLxCSFZ1cBoIoiz8BAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQWCI4NNhQWDJoEaARIBHxeCdoJnBZ9mAodNjFa?= =?us-ascii?q?CDFeEe4pelXEBHzh/C3cVH4dCAXaHQg0XB4EFAYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,421,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="273595465"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jul 2017 19:35:31 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6RJZV8u005781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:35:31 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:35:31 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:35:30 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@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//8hkAgAASYgA=
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:35:30 +0000
Message-ID: <D59FB7D2.2CE8F1%rrahman@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>
In-Reply-To: <D59FB594.BA3A0%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.1.161129
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.94]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <1BE4F1D6E2012D428368482425DF945A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/J1Fh0v10JB7bN7t7uQcE1bakfl4>
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:35:35 -0000

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.
bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has only the multiplier/timers.

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/ietf-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/
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>