Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 21:43 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 3AF53131DA7;
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7,
SPF_PASS=-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 BSTJreQexZC0; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x242.google.com (mail-oi0-x242.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 32E47129B10;
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x242.google.com with SMTP id b130so2884711oii.3;
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:51 -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=7knKbmzmfL3wPJK5FG3+2jyvHzBJmyi7Mwby32zqmAc=;
b=awIW5F4X21puPDAYtzgcyqEcdGes0KEn8BJGzURWhGde1g5brIzcRkRO3DveunespD
Oz+QSbwkxv74CaBKqAP4URArNZrONmP3PuH2wwcU/uwq7SfaAPjBG5wkjn7hNEIs4T7Y
aSDrRkydnQULURLGTGSVYCYGVpxkMNmgcsShqh6f0zTqta6JWylMBZb0GF6fY9skdr17
4NjCnfHGatrZt6o4NtvqRfqRTwpUXAA1ZNKZlBvO0GU6JDh4e95SqMmkTNGgmNU4ZnaR
SH3G4DlDBZLa25KjB84f4ZyLaGSQIdANT/MLJY9BXDpGdhCQb4b3gwXrcCrRrvlZKDop
Y0YA==
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=7knKbmzmfL3wPJK5FG3+2jyvHzBJmyi7Mwby32zqmAc=;
b=mdhvoPRAj+RvBwXFeEUYTxIYJ+8qOrkGGVMMm27bymPZLZD84pvLImFF1zfVwyuFws
7O40L4Hqd6SVwD1MVV0VbS+iBhaUe5Zz5YrY+YTXNlRfJNdfASlttLIQ45Ca5Hfm0eYV
pmhSL1fMNR9Md9t+CV/duXQCaLJCd9b4LNCO3S8ouOaqipqXb472UjZOBcXevQw/5gVU
u+r/E3bIp9Hl5St8TbJT0hKpJ7B3DKMsKgwQFq+6T2s9r4QzSOohZ9+1qBLndg03aOs3
ELn4w2J6qLjHQwboa5f8kqhKam2JuGW0vmmLTP/3ZYCzM3HKmAL34d6oXL3gzoOLnDDQ
rxhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110L9oEFxwoxZhqEnPyh4BA0+/BOhnArxgsr4JRPVwE8KL2kQw0Y
7+o+gp9NWwYcRQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.90.193 with SMTP id o184mr8895010oib.208.1501278230486;
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:30d:1320:1142:f772:6d85:788d?
([2001:420:30d:1320:1142:f772:6d85:788d])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n189sm19786085oih.0.2017.07.28.14.43.49
(version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:43:49 -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: <D5A12762.2D4DB5%rrahman@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:44:02 -0700
Cc: "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>,
"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: <E4E310A2-A79C-403E-B68E-A39B76E2C5E0@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>
<D5A12762.2D4DB5%rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/m6s6cfdGUCS_cNj1wUf75F4IDHQ>
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 21:43:54 -0000
But do those groupings impact IGP models? I can take a stab at making the changes before the weekend. > On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: > > I am fine with this proposal. It will impact other groupings also. > > > > On 2017-07-28, 5:25 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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-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/ietf-b >>>>> fd >>>>> - >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> et >>>>>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> > 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