Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@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 21545131CA2; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, 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 gbGV-v5fhlme; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09F89129A96; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 08:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13036; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501257340; x=1502466940; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=NHY873AGS9hOE3YPoGjlcypaq2C+v0sZpENFB3jvI4g=; b=QdUgSdh1CGX6fwhv9pqBuNU+s/E+CH341Qet+JAeWgfZiMzkBR0lxZLd cJfa4dy2z5i4SU2treL0dO+M/yc/+4LEXHIBNiO1GldSrTm1dWZIB/Quo QaKgiwe/Zj+0PE07jFg1heVcaVPD8A7D3Jh/Rwfw6HEGRI8FT71UQc/qR 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AQAQAdXXtZ/4oNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaPeoFrlgsOggQuhRkCGoNYPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQEBAQMjEUUMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIjAwICAjAUAQgIAgQBDQWKLxCvNYImiz8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuCHYhVgyaBGgESATaCfIJhBZ9tAodNjFeCDFeEe4pelXEBHzh/C3cVH4VAHIFmAXaHQg0XB4EFgQ4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,425,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="460831809"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Jul 2017 15:55:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6SFtcrZ016068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:55:38 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:55:37 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:55:37 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@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+AgAMdioCAABQjAP//8hkAgAASYgD///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YCAAOOAAP///DeA
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:55:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A0D683.BA6A6%acee@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> <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> <D5A0AFE7.2CF6C3%rrahman@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5A0AFE7.2CF6C3%rrahman@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0210FDD2085C4348A0F68907F43265BB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/g-flL-1OpbQ68q08pDGPDkJHJx0>
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 15:55:43 -0000
Thanks much Reshad - Yingzhen will be adding but the ietf-ospf-bfd module to the OSPF model and draft. Acee On 7/28/17, 11:08 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: >Hi Acee, > >Got rid of ietf-bfd-clients. I have added example-bfd-client module to >provide an example. > >Regards, >Reshad. > > > >On 2017-07-27, 10:34 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-bf >>>d >>>- >>>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-b >>>>f >>>>d >>>>- >>>>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/i >>>>>>>>>e >>>>>>>>>t >>>>>>>>>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/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen Qu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Ashesh Mishra
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Jeffrey Haas
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt t petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt tom petch
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Reshad Rahman
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt Greg Mirsky