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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     From: Rtg-bfd <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <
> [e-mail]>
>     Sent: 06 November 2020 12:58
>
>     From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
>     Sent: 21 August 2020 12:31
>
>     On 2020-08-21, 5:57 AM, "tom petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
>         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" <[e-mail]> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>