Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Sun, 11 February 2018 19:31 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 2C763126B6E; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 XbOX0xK6aCM1; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142F712426E; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:31:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=74456; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518377494; x=1519587094; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=UeR/N9Qehy9N8ti8/iOs3cNgl630HVaLX9Q/cbtnD/E=; b=J8/voXcPhEkBGGrnRm+tTA6RB6iYdKwWwXs90RwkGTca+Af/KLU+i5tS MtcX/LuZ0+jHXZX+N8PblRa3s8usQ/4NhvoYQLyiYxTHYU6+ABgZeU2C7 xmY6kuGsS6T/skivmntKgfOEaHy3OGFX/ka5lQRAHNVU1AcMqxXqFRqOd Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DaAAA+mYBa/5NdJa1UChkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGCWnhmcCgKg1uKJI4jggKJFo5CghgKI4UYAhqCIFQYAQIBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECayiFIwEBAQQjCkwQAgEIEQMBAiEBCQICAh8RHQgCBAENBYlRTAMVEK8sg?= =?us-ascii?q?ieHNA2BMYINAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYR8ghWBV4FoKYMFgms5CwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgGBQ0uCdzGCNAWKZA6BAYhQhWOJUzUJAogeiFqFCoIfZ4EehCWLe44CSIkhA?= =?us-ascii?q?hEZAYE7AQ8QOYFQcBU9KgGCGwmEbngBizyBFwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,498,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="354580347"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Feb 2018 19:31:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1BJVXvQ005846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:31:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:31:32 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:31:32 -0600
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Ravi Singh <ravis@juniper.net>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
Thread-Index: AQHTobDOytemU2ag5UyvghYFHwvb4KOfqzYA
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:31:32 +0000
Message-ID: <7F1CDAA4-76E3-4BCA-A052-1C8CE8C71584@cisco.com>
References: <CY1PR05MB252142B6B09A610FB388FE3BABF20@CY1PR05MB2521.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <FF84714E-7A7D-4983-8DCB-46E4E538E58A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF84714E-7A7D-4983-8DCB-46E4E538E58A@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.9.0.180116
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.219]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7F1CDAA476E34BCAA0521C8CE8C71584ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/dGd48pCMwajP-vVU_6H7uouag84>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 08:17:24 -0800
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:31:38 -0000

Hi Ravi,

There is indeed lots of common information and this was addressed by using groupings.

I am not sure I understand the suggestion to use submodules. A submodule can belong to only 1 module (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.1) so I do not see how using submodules would help (but I could be missing something).

We’ve done what you suggested by defining groupings for the common information, so although you see repetitions in the YANG trees, there is no repetition in the YANG modules.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>;
Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: Ravi Singh <ravis@juniper.net>;, "rtg-ads@ietf.org"; <rtg-ads@ietf.org>;
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org"; <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>;, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>;
Resent-To: <rrahman@cisco.com>;, <vero.zheng@huawei.com>;, <mjethanandani@gmail.com>;, <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>;, <gregimirsky@gmail.com>;
Resent-Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM

+yang doctors

Hi Ravi,
 submodules have proved to be unwieldy and offer little advantage over groupings. I don’t know that we want to crave this model up into submodules. I’ve copied the YANG doctors to assure this is the consensus as there have been submodule debates on the NETMOD list in the past.

Thanks,
Acee


From: rtg-dir <rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Ravi Singh <ravis@juniper.net>;
Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org"; <rtg-ads@ietf.org>;
Cc: Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org"; <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>;
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 02/09/2018
Intended Status: Proposed standard



Summary: there is more commonality of info in the new modules listed in sections 2.6-2.10 than there are differences. So, I think it would be worthwhile looking at sub-abstracting things to avoid repetitive fields individually listed in the modules of section 2.6-2.10.

Details:
I've reviewed the draft. Most sections look good.
My comments below pertain to 2.6 to 2.10.
Section 2 says "Since BFD is used for liveliness detection of various forwarding
   paths, there is no uniform key to identify a BFD session.  So the BFD
   data model is split in multiple YANG modules where each module
   corresponds to one type of forwarding path. "
That is ok. However, this is causing too much repetition of info across the multiple modules.
There appears to be scope for modularization to not repeat the individual fields in describing them in every module that uses them.
Instead sub-modules should be considered & listed in one section which just augment the newly created modules of this draft wherever currently used.

Eg.
Separate sub-modules could be considered for:
A.
        +--ro session-statistics
        |  +--ro session-count?              uint32
        |  +--ro session-up-count?           uint32
        |  +--ro session-down-count?         uint32
        |  +--ro session-admin-down-count?   uint32

B.
           +--rw source-addr                 inet:ip-address
           +--rw dest-addr                   inet:ip-address
           +--rw local-multiplier?           multiplier
           +--rw (interval-config-type)?
           |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
           |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?    uint32
           |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
           |  +--:(single-interval)
           |     +--rw min-interval?               uint32
           +--rw demand-enabled?             boolean {demand-mode}?
           +--rw admin-down?                 boolean
           +--rw authentication! {authentication}?
           |  +--rw key-chain?    kc:key-chain-ref
           |  +--rw meticulous?   Boolean

C.
              +--ro path-type?              identityref
              +--ro ip-encapsulation?       boolean
              +--ro local-discriminator?    discriminator
              +--ro remote-discriminator?   discriminator
              +--ro remote-multiplier?      multiplier
              +--ro demand-capability?      boolean {demand-mode}?
              +--ro source-port?            inet:port-number
              +--ro dest-port?              inet:port-number
              +--ro session-running
              |  +--ro session-index?                uint32
              |  +--ro local-state?                  state
              |  +--ro remote-state?                 state
              |  +--ro local-diagnostic?
              |  |       iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
              |  +--ro remote-diagnostic?
              |  |       iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
              |  +--ro remote-authenticated?         boolean
              |  +--ro remote-authentication-type?
              |  |       iana-bfd-types:auth-type {authentication}?
              |  +--ro detection-mode?               enumeration
              |  +--ro negotiated-tx-interval?       uint32
              |  +--ro negotiated-rx-interval?       uint32
              |  +--ro detection-time?               uint32
              |  +--ro echo-tx-interval-in-use?      uint32
              |          {echo-mode}?
              +--ro sesssion-statistics
                 +--ro create-time?            yang:date-and-time
                 +--ro last-down-time?         yang:date-and-time
                 +--ro last-up-time?           yang:date-and-time
                 +--ro down-count?             uint32
                 +--ro admin-down-count?       uint32
                 +--ro receive-packet-count?   uint64
                 +--ro send-packet-count?      uint64
                 +--ro receive-bad-packet?     uint64
                 +--ro send-failed-packet?     Uint64

D.
           +--rw (interval-config-type)?
           |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
           |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?    uint32
           |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
           |  +--:(single-interval)
           |     +--rw min-interval?               uint32


E.

              +--ro sesssion-statistics
              |  +--ro create-time?            yang:date-and-time
              |  +--ro last-down-time?         yang:date-and-time
              |  +--ro last-up-time?           yang:date-and-time
              |  +--ro down-count?             uint32
              |  +--ro admin-down-count?       uint32
              |  +--ro receive-packet-count?   uint64
              |  +--ro send-packet-count?      uint64
              |  +--ro receive-bad-packet?     uint64
              |  +--ro send-failed-packet?     uint64

F.       In notifications:
        +--ro local-discr?                 discriminator
        +--ro remote-discr?                discriminator
        +--ro new-state?                   state
        +--ro state-change-reason?         iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
        +--ro time-of-last-state-change?   yang:date-and-time
        +--ro dest-addr?                   inet:ip-address
        +--ro source-addr?                 inet:ip-address
        +--ro session-index?               uint32
        +--ro path-type?                   identityref

Separate sub-modules for the above could be used to enable cleaner abstractions. The same could augment the modules of sections 2.6-2.10.

Regards
Ravi