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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Mon, 31 July 2017 20:06 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 E0E66131C9C; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:34 -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 TcdvzY7gm83W; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (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 997DF124B0A; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id j194so19706731oib.4; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:25 -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=Fk8EKHsIZi5aqBBDu36xFzYbpggJgzZJPSKSY33AF1w=; b=GQrivQom7+n/3mkbhOHyAqsCoTNs0ponzrcUQ+njSg0MeHtMjuaes/Gmvq9qX2UyJ2 iHRGydvR3fMFXZw3i+9cRkkcYhiavfnFxTPMWuoIFwS/jRMkHzby9PwK89PYQbh9XA8F OHVxzhf+AXwBpHqjTYeSl6xHG4qv0gw5nGM6aLLCzSM7swS8KNq+Q0LoRVzYRt8QVakw RcHHn95/YL/3PzTPLgA3uqNlEWLyH0PSR9V0dbH3ITOBWE8Bm6F9pajyRUiu2DspDhyb B3Slg+Uh8klZowIbmtTJGceVT5NJu3LGRVAeSv8SNUiTYWqgsQ8TZrge6qku0TnM5WCH Igzw==
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=Fk8EKHsIZi5aqBBDu36xFzYbpggJgzZJPSKSY33AF1w=; b=dY3ucGV/Wc6fp2NJsuADrqUn1asUwBBwQjIosppkkP2JtpfVKFAW+pv/wYAB45JkDa jPXEQjAg7mKasLvkyatW4WcJuencalBseHbx3RxRjg5XEmRITrU5SO1o9md/B0hd0rFY +0C3uLncHWWjpnmXlNbHhjTZM+WUfwBWmaHfy6gF/GvGWQp+WaU/Q+T7JxWMKGgYR1xm 8Jy2IkSYrh9awVjvyN6sQ04gONaQF0ax0+5xWbLv9Yhs2zgT8A1s9/YtZ2eXfBSTZFh4 Vpb7pMlgm2yeHQsNzXqw7hN56c2ZdmVxE8UIASwI6CguWW03oNrvP1EOPzWLVj8tPfA6 T5Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113yM/JjcK4OPK/ZO7jXklPDWVqjg2YRSz+olQAo8XwH8Ly9qdgT If8rvMP0IDreMw==
X-Received: by 10.202.198.23 with SMTP id w23mr14281925oif.168.1501531584878; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:30d:1320:a4d9:8b58:f92c:ca51? ([2001:420:30d:1320:a4d9:8b58:f92c:ca51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x23sm29794937oix.51.2017.07.31.13.06.23 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:24 -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: <D5A4F795.BB7F8%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:06:49 -0700
Cc: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.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: <A3CB00C6-6430-48F3-9378-5CB6C6CB9CE0@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> <0CF89DCC-4DC1-414C-8D13-51106B10D6F7@gmail.com> <D5A4CE19.BB701%acee@cisco.com> <D5A4F795.BB7F8%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/l_ojJSL3sK4trweeU8MAhTb_vJw>
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 20:06:35 -0000

Ok. Will do.

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Sigh, I mean “why don’t you add ‘enabled’…"
> 
> On 7/31/17, 2:56 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mahesh, 
>> 
>> On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
>> 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 <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>om>; Yingzhen Qu
>>>> <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>om>; Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>rg>;
>>>> 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>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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang>
>>> 
>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>> 
>> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com