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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@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 12ED7132199; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 0rcfZsGsaqi4; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (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 2CB3D132198; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id v11so19793560oif.1; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lPTKFQyjFllgi8vsTVSE66saVjm8zEGN3XR46qLx5cA=; b=utWezermkKUEQicEpDM0AFSvakuxISBrcclfr/Qp8IyAr5jG2ImAqen4EKRX2XbyHe YSyUvK2zEYpCuZG3lEbDhvCQcdqROp7hr/U7M2eot4TzcLPj2lFzd9GicX81P8rD6mCG fnL3R39xkfCXdenFTYg+/ANmdGk3vW3SiDe3LgfeBVoE5RymGYR6geNjj6ePgpxD7Y8N KC6fy0hCsuRiFesFgL2hauU9OnbaEtHbnPsUnlgKn+4SvzrGf5m/6sMlCaOWenBGnhyn vcEGIzXGNrsRle/QB8Bc7QSqadb0lWlMKDphdU69r5Zs+kKCPlpileYJPrMx0o+mqtew M48g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lPTKFQyjFllgi8vsTVSE66saVjm8zEGN3XR46qLx5cA=; b=OANybS/iRpegnZ0KN9Jvd0aZMgQh5TXbHLDtZOEibTkiJutbCEve7ANVwW4/Bs3AOv xrNDAmAjxruaYfkE/nt0EA5wK6zYgf8wrqUAspbomcVeTV2yPImoGHrvCPWxfrIpekAY vK4LPeAcHdh6I9uu2ihziSHghC0lPlB4PT0I4xMT3R0/mKJENE8iYAdMvyFXFuVSgQ+7 eeNNBjGZIG8UVZxV+8BDKACnBAADJ5XHxwbbpxnlxCJ4ouabDI70hSRQyEsOGkdBhYfs U4ijsWL431U+ZuoFvwoxoXaR4zRWMc7Wk393R/VultvdOv6XYmKvcPLAaGntQ2JCEcoq SBhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113JVTjv/55CIe0x6kChlEuu8LfylyKd13wERHccN2K34ZBFbGki 57TLYyJUNyBQWg==
X-Received: by 10.202.77.3 with SMTP id a3mr8512074oib.64.1501277115431; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:30d:1320:1142:f772:6d85:788d? ([2001:420:30d:1320:1142:f772:6d85:788d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h67sm20473669oic.43.2017.07.28.14.25.14 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5A01A7B.BA49E%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:25:27 -0700
Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, 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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.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>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/XZaEhMYEMALShbkTP9msSk83U9w>
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 21:25:19 -0000

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-bfd-
>> 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-bfd
>>> -
>>> 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/iet
>>>>>>>> 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>; 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