Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Thanks for the review. 
In your example below
                 +--ro number-of-sessions (10)
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-up (2)
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-down (5)
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down (3)

There is a description on Page 37 of rev-16 of the draft, I can add to it as follows, is this sufficient?
      leaf number-of-sessions {
        type yang:gauge32;
        description "Number of BFD sessions.";
      }
      leaf number-of-sessions-up {
        type yang:gauge32;
        description "Number of BFD sessions currently in up state (as defined in [RFC5880]).";
      }
      leaf number-of-sessions-down {
        type yang:gauge32;
        description "Number of BFD sessions currently in down or init state (as defined in [RFC5880]).";
      }
      leaf number-of-sessions-admin-down {
        type yang:gauge32;
        description
          "Number of BFD sessions currently in admin-down state (as defined in [RFC5880]).";
      }

I will fix the nits in the next rev.

Regards,
Reshad.   

On 2018-07-04, 1:17 PM, "Warren Kumari" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: Discuss
    
    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/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Don't panic, this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear, but I think it important
    for interoperability.
    
    In multiple places, you have:
                 +--ro number-of-sessions?
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-up?
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-down?
                 +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down?
    
    I'm a little confused by the meaning of the counters, and didn't see them
    clearly defined anywhere. Apologies if I missed it...
    
    Are "number-of-sessions-admin-down" included in "number-of-sessions-down"?
    Is 'number-of-sessions' always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' +
    'number-of-sessions-down', or is it always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' +
    'number-of-sessions-down' + 'number-of-sessions-admin-down', or are there other
    cases?
    
    E.g: I have created 10 sessions (because I have 10 interfaces). 5 of them are
    down because there is no peer, 3 of them I've configured to be down (admin
    down), and so 2 of them are up.
    
    What should be in each of:
    number-of-sessions?
    number-of-sessions-up?
    number-of-sessions-down?
    number-of-sessions-admin-down?
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Thank you.
    
    I also had a few minor nits:
    Nits:
    Section 1:
    "The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore
    Architecture (NMDA) Network Management Datastore Architecture [RFC8342]. " The
    Department of Redundancy Department called and wants some of their words back
    please :-)
    
    Section 2:
    "Since BFD is used for liveliness detection of various forwarding
       paths, there is no uniform key to identify a BFD session.  So the BFD
       data model is split in multiple YANG modules where each module
       corresponds to one type of forwarding path."
    I think this would be more readable as:
    "... to identify a BFD session, and so the BFD..."  (hey, I said it was a nit)