Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 16:28 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 EBEEF131CE3; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:28:51 -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 DNv1AxB6784e; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 053DA124217; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14526; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501259328; x=1502468928; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LLbQinjMJNjEz6lbRTtBLaoyL2Mp3UTzZGBVaxM5or4=; b=CheWwv1gpWQZQ3RBa5W0vhCEULLrc1QSDpiS/7g4AZdlv5stHPa5GYfp Xq6AhiNZ19QvYMS5IX3wIr1oS79h35c2tUy3KG5/jaDHApDCu1itGKcYO 4HE2IasaA1gu6rywohV8fleyeLQ7DM5SJaMG/P0yFROHm2mQGxLk+eRoM g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ARAQAbZXtZ/49dJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaPeoFrlgsOggQCKoUbAhqDWD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayi?= =?us-ascii?q?FGAEBAQEDNEUMBAIBCBEEAQEBBCMFAgIwFAkIAgQBDQWKLxCSHpwyAYEpBoIoi?= =?us-ascii?q?z8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdMlOCI4NNhQiDJoEaARIBNoJ2gmcFl2C?= =?us-ascii?q?IDQKHTYxXggxXhHuKXolTjB4BHzh/C3cVH4VAHIFmAXaHQg0XB4EFAYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,425,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="275867365"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jul 2017 16:28:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6SGSlNb027047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:28:47 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:28:47 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:28:47 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.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///DeAAAEH/JAAAjwBgA==
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:28:46 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A0DE29.2CFF85%rrahman@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> <D5A0D683.BA6A6%acee@cisco.com> <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B53867F@dfweml501-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B53867F@dfweml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.1.161129
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.44]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <AA60D7E10A536C408E58779BAA5662AB@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/j3dVvrJTPR75h9DKdelu5m6TAks>
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 16:28:52 -0000

Thanks Yingzhen. FYI I will be on holiday for the next 2 weeks.

Acee, can you please get in touch with ISIS YANG authors?

Regards,

Reshad.

On 2017-07-28, 12:25 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> wrote:

>Hi Reshad,
>
>Thanks for the update and example. I'll get ospf part done this weekend.
>
>Thanks,
>Yingzhen 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:56 AM
>To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>om>; Yingzhen Qu
><yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>i.com>; Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>rg>; 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
>
>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/iet
>>>>>f-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>rg>; 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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>