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

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Ok. Will do.

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sigh, I mean “why don’t you add ‘enabled’…"
> 
> On 7/31/17, 2:56 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mahesh, 
>> 
>> On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I don’t add ‘enabled’ to the client-cfg-parms? Then a client would only
>> need a single grouping.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM
>>>> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>; Yingzhen Qu
>>>> <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 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) <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Reshad,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/27/17, 3:35 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> 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)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Reshad,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/17, 3:19 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> 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)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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)"
>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:19 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail];
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang>
>>> 
>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]