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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 27 July 2017 19:19 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 00213131DAF; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 oTQZib2cIP4t; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAEDB126C0F; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6786; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501183169; x=1502392769; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4rUu/zXseZ42y/n1CJx23CLx8cdRyaJ1Itna2Xus0ag=; b=V7ZKIIoBQRwKii6WUpndP3RSTKDqeLoWAoBIGhNAR2VEbJNKPcz7/f60 qzpH2GLbzjCliGjxU9E7pa4/N0v63p/mU+Tcqwi0INfaWr+6mBKY7tiGF ML/4hI0f+Pc3rBvd3OZO1EH2Lf5nJM8d1aNgAJhRLFNFM5BQ+xy6fT1as A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CbAABcPHpZ/5FdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaRYpYKDoIELoUZAhqDSz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDNEUMBAIBCBEEAQEBBCMFAgIwFAkIAgQBDQWKLxCSAp1cBoIoi0ABAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQWCI4NNhQWDJoEaARIBHxeCdoJnBZ9mAodNjFa?= =?us-ascii?q?CDFeEe4pelXEBHzh/C3cVH4dCAXaHT4EjAYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,421,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="273566186"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jul 2017 19:19:28 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6RJJSj2008098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:19:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:19:28 -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; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:19:27 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
CC: "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+AgAMdioCAABQjAA==
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:19:27 +0000
Message-ID: <D59FB38C.2CE83D%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>
In-Reply-To: <D59FB0AD.BA38A%acee@cisco.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: [161.44.212.94]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <FDB353E1BDAA2D4AB08A50540DD343F8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/bTgpwoa22qlSWH6eFbNSsXfGjSI>
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:19:32 -0000

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).

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.

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/ietf-bfd
>>-
>>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/
>>>>
>>
>