Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Mon, 31 July 2017 04:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 E0512128C81; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 AvGBPL9xG5qB; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com (mail-pg0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]) (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 DFD72120724; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y192so1038178pgd.1; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SdrefsHuyOsMKBDWplwYonAM0Kpf1EgbouiUvRHshfY=; b=RlBVFJPYCfw+/XYC6+K1xT4ypJHuGQOlsGACwQnfJ7lFKWxzrLhoojTA8XacjbcbOz CrAHU/uwcnWD1SklhoE5tr0LlygymgRRoILrBWSzOc/jcGL9788nnkQ7rvJ+gQxoOni4 p32JLmK/S5KVUNoeuQDNSqizE6DQmVIcBz0FfzCLFIk9Fls5dK+fGqjlz2BcE7ziGAet 50GWxjWEkCqa+cs45LUodkKIoZrKCYkYvtowWru7jFhOpp4CYInJ0CDvDDBOO+M3Wh71 HWRd0v71/9JVxqKG+c7IfuaEO+sNQJ3Y3F8/S893CkCcLz01FM5zIaQ5RUOop245qJbb Fxng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SdrefsHuyOsMKBDWplwYonAM0Kpf1EgbouiUvRHshfY=; b=SL5MhWmfnJt/1VzYbjhEGi+gvSP5uYPB0JcH5vk2SfpkKbQ+EbF/UfRTCU8v8BstVZ IbcAEABLeJyQsjk78xCrwIXyhOzBC/EFACHMzfBD2AxripGLZltpLquyKwumS6YURifF hLY99uzuP1Unfzty03GE/vFAQzeTvIMdKexGmbOTwSI7JLTqn53VxGjMyXwopU97qryS dNiSfhboYBzJ6f1mBcFbYpD6yPHU0N8ygX7OzmdY+hN6mamYyV8bQyP82ozD4hbLuozC syKH34n7JOKrf5adIe3mi2ZkI102+2cKXDWWNDu1PV2o2hJK38YS/VgpaKlP0ANWDORq 59Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111lhlLbMzrB0Hbl619cyzMRbxdBsTEhHsQYNmW8zaEmwnACt4f9 APVWilVE4/sRLg==
X-Received: by 10.84.241.207 with SMTP id t15mr16249647plm.347.1501476163284; Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:cf77:df90:e4b7:a49c:e1e5:4052? ([2602:306:cf77:df90:e4b7:a49c:e1e5:4052]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r207sm50270728pfr.106.2017.07.30.21.42.40 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B5388E1@dfweml501-mbx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 21:42:41 -0700
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0CF89DCC-4DC1-414C-8D13-51106B10D6F7@gmail.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> <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.com> <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B5388E1@dfweml501-mbx>
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/g0980P_lCj6qCUt_V0gQfhxeLlE>
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 04:42:46 -0000
Yingzhen, Overall the model looks good to me. I notice that you decided to (re)define the enable flag in the model. Is that intentional? You are aware that there is another grouping called client-base-cfg-parms that defines the enabled flag. I am not a particular fan of this split, but I am told that some client protocols just need the enable flag without the rest of the parameters of client-cfg-parms. If the split is confusing, we can collapse the enabled flag into client-cfg-parms. Thanks. > On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Please see attached ospf bfd module. Base ospf module also needs to be updated to remove the bfd enable leaf. ISIS model need to do the same change, ietf-isis-bfd.yang will look the same as ietf-ospf-bfd.yang. > > Please let me know your commetns. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> > Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>; Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt > > Would it not be better to call bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms something like bfd-grouping-client-cfg-params or more simply client-cfg-params. We know it is a grouping and we know it is a bfd grouping. Why repeat? > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 7:34 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 >>> -bfd- >>> 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/iet >>>> f-bfd >>>> - >>>> 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/yan >>>>>>>>> g/iet >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanandani@gmail.com > > > > <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com
- 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