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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 01:03 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 D5B80131ED0; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:03:04 -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 DAltmPGim1xz; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F79131ECF; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501203782; x=1502413382; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=wtMUGumVvQY9LySfW0XwghkGvbN3Sli00JSYRVtw62Y=; b=BjIdgAMsNdPZvxsj+Tvw6Eu8SL2fAgm6vCxnR+ytil9+CI/O2/tlGjJ0 hhzIqCbjKf2Awokg7DA3BbyE78+xfh0Ze5wdjul9B6FAHkP7XQT06Wci3 cQfSUZv5y0iSlOI6cRPgYfIn2Dv3KZFUus8SjRO7wajMXK+0SGDc7w+nS A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DBAABEjHpZ/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaRYpYKDoIELoUZAhqDSz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDNEUMBAIBCBEEAQEBBCMFAgIwFAkIAgQBDQWKLxCRdZ1cBoIoi0ABAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQWCI4NNhQWDJoEaARIBHxeCdoJnBZ9mAodNjFa?= =?us-ascii?q?CDFeEe4pelXEBHzh/C3cVH4VAHIFmAXaHQg0XB4EFgQ4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,423,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="460790931"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Jul 2017 01:03:01 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6S131kj008611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 01:03:01 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:03:00 -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; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:03:00 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@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///B3AIAAawoA
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D59FBE2A.2CEA06%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>
In-Reply-To: <D59FB934.BA3C3%acee@cisco.com>
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: [10.86.246.31]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <31E496BB89953A4483CB224E841D6677@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/kcwCNlwStlt6JwmrWkNg_4i3DRo>
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 01:03:05 -0000

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/ietf-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/yang/ietf
>>>>>>-
>>>>>>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/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>