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