Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 04 July 2018 18:03 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 DA274130E6D for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 MHLiR3BadolF for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 A59F7130E50 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p11-v6so7122847wmc.4 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G0OIXPnXLu6wbJeEcmeUQElgDdBLCHr72uhXddEUAtg=; b=POjJt80l8ptG6ycXdrzqKf8hcu28T+z3hGdCSfvxvhpmmL+vFBzbSsE87x4IgHQTTm x5f2rPOs2T5kRM1CIXlGdipJWkiyBiAw/OVCIMQy9i9Uc/5bIEy9kHJcm9SNg+Wjm97g q0j2+lgwHheWm2NMALsbO37CAbLBQK2iZyLBLUjypeyrmaD7QmuZ0Y8Qpj7VxFTRI0I3 Z9HDR6sw5soGTR0YlzMQQy17+mlZqPD03SLXvdraHHxZUY/DVsdvo4zaDTGTEum7H76d T1v5WX0kIBWlbCPaSRIfdU3MJL0bFW2tGOaeHIF0t8MPXb73UNhF+IJGcCdwAjhDtrW2 /U9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G0OIXPnXLu6wbJeEcmeUQElgDdBLCHr72uhXddEUAtg=; b=SuE73gYlArW00eFloCqq660i5Ey5u8R0WTuXiTjmRjb2CAIwAD49bzErrNJQeucqPF 5rUuxL15auylQ22M5RbHC4Aja4qRXurFi3YZZfCiKvqqENziZZJtm5L2I1ChuUrjl7k/ NP+c6LmwPWtky9s33xQiWa8SwzqaHXRZUXC7QS95eD1yftdCOCy9Kbr2BbtzeZeVYI+3 9J0rR31CuF2QnF32rbLd39hVseg8mobvGU8yRgndleecgkwe3r/VbOd1+bydYMDqy+WP dJOm/DIhHjAOF+3q6NjdWdycT5rkBfLWJ4lWF/u6dafe7/nuuP3zdxGmFP4rpsRcdahV Oknw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0oJNAcEdieyMVdfbKuHjt8JodBfVUA4by6PDdNU7gBz962aT5S 5+33pOu3E0YQHbs7PG7eYroWKxxdXvzcfSoIOIZQNg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpep23aK4Gjjv8pY9RxoGyifk5JPmRcfR2+DMJB3S0dN7sMMYPkOdxhS594xMcyzVokIGMOx5m4EuAVxMhvHEbM=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:8b0d:: with SMTP id n13-v6mr2055463wmd.46.1530727403824; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153072464426.27514.14043810545632452277.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E5A28979-F0E7-4018-A6FF-93115ADD3225@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E5A28979-F0E7-4018-A6FF-93115ADD3225@cisco.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 14:02:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+WsKW5rBo7_CqmzRWBxv--js1OSJ21biXH4Nqx=r6bHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: rrahman@cisco.com
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000273cc60570303feb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/fAWP3f9mwHLWaPjTt10VIaGVVwg>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 18:03:32 -0000
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:49 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Warren, > > Thanks for the review. > In your example below > +--ro number-of-sessions (10) > +--ro number-of-sessions-up (2) > +--ro number-of-sessions-down (5) > +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down (3) > > There is a description on Page 37 of rev-16 of the draft, I can add to it > as follows, is this sufficient? > Thank you, I checked there, and I don't *think* that this quite covers it. The below *implies* that admin-down is not counted in 'number-of-sessions-down' (which is only 'down or init' state), but I think it could be clearer. Perhaps: leaf number-of-sessions-down { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions currently in down or init state (and not admin-down) (as defined in [RFC5880])."; } Does that work, or is it too long? W > leaf number-of-sessions { > type yang:gauge32; > description "Number of BFD sessions."; > } > leaf number-of-sessions-up { > type yang:gauge32; > description "Number of BFD sessions currently in up state (as > defined in [RFC5880])."; > } > leaf number-of-sessions-down { > type yang:gauge32; > description "Number of BFD sessions currently in down or init > state (as defined in [RFC5880])."; > } > leaf number-of-sessions-admin-down { > type yang:gauge32; > description > "Number of BFD sessions currently in admin-down state (as > defined in [RFC5880])."; > } > > I will fix the nits in the next rev. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On 2018-07-04, 1:17 PM, "Warren Kumari" <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Don't panic, this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear, but I think it > important > for interoperability. > > In multiple places, you have: > +--ro number-of-sessions? > +--ro number-of-sessions-up? > +--ro number-of-sessions-down? > +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down? > > I'm a little confused by the meaning of the counters, and didn't see > them > clearly defined anywhere. Apologies if I missed it... > > Are "number-of-sessions-admin-down" included in > "number-of-sessions-down"? > Is 'number-of-sessions' always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' + > 'number-of-sessions-down', or is it always equal to > 'number-of-sessions-up' + > 'number-of-sessions-down' + 'number-of-sessions-admin-down', or are > there other > cases? > > E.g: I have created 10 sessions (because I have 10 interfaces). 5 of > them are > down because there is no peer, 3 of them I've configured to be down > (admin > down), and so 2 of them are up. > > What should be in each of: > number-of-sessions? > number-of-sessions-up? > number-of-sessions-down? > number-of-sessions-admin-down? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. > > I also had a few minor nits: > Nits: > Section 1: > "The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management > Datastore > Architecture (NMDA) Network Management Datastore Architecture > [RFC8342]. " The > Department of Redundancy Department called and wants some of their > words back > please :-) > > Section 2: > "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." > I think this would be more readable as: > "... to identify a BFD session, and so the BFD..." (hey, I said it > was a nit) > > > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
- Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16… Warren Kumari
- Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yan… Warren Kumari
- Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yan… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yan… Warren Kumari
- Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yan… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)