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

[Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>]

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