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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 21:42 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 13CBD131537; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, 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 ywhCOtTacoxb; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E07FD1321A2; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13536; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501278144; x=1502487744; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=FjMUI1KslMQ29AvYOpSArlkBnwGj27SgOig1FJOTAXc=; b=Ig7fxiFpjKrA0XfmB1Z2B7ck90sDhojZBBFXzCCXTvnyy/f0tiFPaohq xdF5GPFyUpvvqwmIv5op3/rWAkByA8gBSOjp1IaF+qcRgNSnfK/wQKj5J Ys15X44fNkFqdoo+y4EFjJqu91Mq8l+RDzaCF/+BRCH4qW9MHcB0X7zVR 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DAAAAtr3tZ/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkgRQHjgaPeYFriDGNWg6CBC6FGQIag1o/GAECAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohRgBAQEBAzRFDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEEIwUCAh8RFAkIAgQBDQWKFwMVEJF0nVwGg?= =?us-ascii?q?iiHLg2EBAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BBYIjg02FCIJXT4EaARIBHxe?= =?us-ascii?q?CdoJnBZ8xPAKHTYdmhHGCDFeEe4pejBuJVgEfOH8LdxUfhUAcgWYBdodCDRcHg?= =?us-ascii?q?QWBDgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,427,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="57980801"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jul 2017 21:42:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (xch-aln-013.cisco.com [173.36.7.23]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6SLgNgH007146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:42:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:42:22 -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; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:42:22 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.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///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YCAAY+3gP//wcOA
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:42:22 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A12762.2D4DB5%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> <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>
In-Reply-To: <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.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: [10.86.255.171]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <515A4267771A6E4D94CFEA0EA82BA9B8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/MHBzXz77T6l0ihW1VsoO-7JPVnA>
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: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:42:28 -0000

I am fine with this proposal. It will impact other groupings also.



On 2017-07-28, 5:25 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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-bf
>>>d-
>>> 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/ietf-b
>>>>fd
>>>> -
>>>> 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/yang/i
>>>>>>>>>et
>>>>>>>>> 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>rg>; 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
>
>
>