Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 19 December 2020 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 A85633A0D65; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 z1Jbf36ECD2M; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AE413A0D55; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id b26so4083352lff.9; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tWY7oukzCEKOP6h+7n2n+eSUcR+vAO4Tk/g2sFBXxuU=; b=be/n6EHLPvXwl6XCmSvKkpRfGTXPWLfb3FeVjPzJyJBZSMoADdMIW4JZKmMWVjYNxY fMyhSGw9ld0rU/XfuzJnzrDm9eVOnMfYs5e8zTCdARE01plVnCcIZsFXZzJfn9O1F6yw De3q3TdwshncGH5q1AHvBKbujodFePM1WVb3FMtEnVK0hGfo77oejtvVMHL0xQAsEkkm JKmVVgucTAjD6HKz9BMzsnMEEWBLUuzKvV/tMYJzNvWkbmkzcDVSvI3C773p9M5H3OjS KNpDtwI7xmteXOTMsSL5eyjA2ZkuVr+Ad9eNLS3yKYVxyol9ol5wIzjdkDb+Fbtpyzrw wghA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tWY7oukzCEKOP6h+7n2n+eSUcR+vAO4Tk/g2sFBXxuU=; b=JItUL6DF0T5ytM4sYysk8dAcmj8lbsHLXVfbTatAsJtZoR8KI+MRzU7XlKQVMyMbnR 07BqTDm5Ld379FCf6rQB0nepxBq5vGVbj6ozjbiNHFFmvvpwThkm/lSsjQ81vddPLvlT UME1a0fbPzd+1E7b+fG5o6/OMmJsgjV0PM53S+VEmi60Cm5X4gXCoPk/fhnOIv84FJEm O4m5dfbtAjojlGgqmfIFqx9gvKLdvz8SQ7uDzqgc4KuW2AAkHAKPUnAm+r/c1Lfh20QE KP/d5T3mg9LZn6/fvLeJeqYGtnczcDJo2ONK4duOMh+iTr7kjbSb9w3ghMY95D+kq1ad BT9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5324RYYf0uelCnt7USaT7DdFvH/90gSQbvo2jNEnLZJyqEmQYrrO 7DVtQUar/V9d5dXMXmJcJbihxe8dWZCapl34OMI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGy6kNBiG6skG77Gd4WyfHNvZXjT50JuC935kgc9yHm+ylJGo6arEjaS3mkPNUDYqtwdBP7zNj0UKN1g0VTk8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:50c1:: with SMTP id h1mr3760141lfm.350.1608398025201; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.com> <D5A12762.2D4DB5%rrahman@cisco.com> <E4E310A2-A79C-403E-B68E-A39B76E2C5E0@gmail.com> <773E4FFC-D66A-49E5-A03A-58B7DBA82D90@gmail.com> <20170731170550.GO24942@pfrc.org> <BAF4C9E6-ED02-4E25-89DD-2FA181AF3B72@gmail.com> <3637B198-8F82-4A85-A4A1-4383AF98088D@pfrc.org> <D26CB257-E4B2-42FA-940E-BF77C8BC1751@gmail.com> <20170801144129.GC24942@pfrc.org> <F319C69C-3A4E-4C5C-ADA4-37BDFD97E91A@gmail.com> <20170801163340.GD24942@pfrc.org> <5F3EA5A8.1050202@btconnect.com> <6D3A9C62-D1FA-4382-B253-9CBC7BEAFD69@cisco.com> <DB7PR07MB534039E99915BC162D4B6CA1A25B0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DC0A86C4-D9F0-4725-A2A8-7FA481A9DE27@cisco.com> <AM6PR07MB5784521D81DBF9D60A5BCF12A2ED0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM6PR07MB57840A9782624674211C044CA2C20@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <189F7452-D997-42D9-A22F-E93A4716E8F3@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <189F7452-D997-42D9-A22F-E93A4716E8F3@yahoo.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 09:13:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmU2j3P82S_eNKkOub8uqr7K2h6YSse4u7cPYLA+TYWxdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt
To: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Cc: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.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>, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f31cab05b6d45875"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/MToLrYIwv2lv4L_G_amAd6q_sdA>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 17:13:50 -0000

Hi Reshad,
I've got them. I will re-send several from the RFC Editor shortly.

Regards,
Greg

On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 7:08 AM Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have had discussions recently with the RFC Editor wrt changes needed in
> draft-ietf-bfd-yang. Unfortunately I don't have access to those emails
> anymore. I don't know whether we can access the latest text in the draft.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> ´╗┐On 2020-12-19, 8:04 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of tom petch" <
> rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>     From: Rtg-bfd <rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch <
> ietfa@btconnect.com>
>     Sent: 06 November 2020 12:58
>
>     From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
>     Sent: 21 August 2020 12:31
>
>     On 2020-08-21, 5:57 AM, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>         From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
>         Sent: 20 August 2020 18:42
>
>         I had noticed the lsps vs lsps-state, mentioned it at last BFD WG
> meeting and have been in touch with the teas-yang authors.
>
>         I hadn't noticed that mpls:enabled had been removed. I'll have to
> go through all MPLS-related items in the BFD yang.
>
>     <tp>
>     mpls-base has been approved by the IESG and is wending its way through
> the system and that is a Normative dependency for bfd-yang so the there
> might be progress on bfd-yang.  I had a look at the tools pages and MISSREF
> but do not understand what it is telling me:-(
>
>     <tp2>
>
>     mpls-base is now RFC8960.  As yet I do not see any consequential
> changes in the I-D in the RFC Editor Q but I am not sure what I should be
> looking for so I shall keep looking :-)
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>
>         <tp>
>         Yes please; enabled is still there but in a different place; I
> have not gone back to mpls-base-yang-03 to see if the semantics are the
> same.
>
>         Note my third rather indecisive comment that mpls-base-yang now
> models mpls in a different way, splitting IP routes with some MPLS, from
> MPLS only routes, with no IP, as described in mpls-base-yang-15; I have not
> got my head around this and do not know how it fits with bfd but suspect
> that it needs some thinking about.
>     <RR> I don't think it has an impact because BFD uses an IP-prefix as
> MPLS-FEC. But I will take a look.
>
>         I read the meeting minutes but your significant (for me)
> contribution appears to have passed the minute taker by:-)
>     <RR>  It was mentioned in the chairs slides though.
>
>     Regards,
>     Reshad.
>
>         Tom Petch
>
>
>
>         Regards,
>         Reshad.
>
>         On 2020-08-20, 12:33 PM, "t petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>             Yes bfd-yang.  Sometimes I would like to be wrong.
>
>             When I look at this I-D, I see that it references
>
>  /rt:routing/mpls:mpls/mpls:interface/mpls:config/mpls:enabled
>             In 2018, the MPLS WG removed that /config from the
> mpls-base-yang so
>             this would seem to be no longer valid. What needs changing to
> rectify
>             this I have not explored.
>
>             The I-D has
>                   augment "/te:te/te:lsps-state/te:lsp"
>             which I no longer see in  draft-ietf-teas-yang-te - the -state
> has gone.
>             Again, I have not explored the ramifications of this.
>
>             MPLS WG has a new base-yang out this week which differentiates
> between
>             an IP route with a MPLS next hop and a MPLS route with no IP,
> the latter
>             forming a new, mpls Address Family.  I would think that the
> latter is
>             not catered for by BFD but it would be nice to be wrong
>
>             Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>