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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 27 July 2017 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 9F05712EA7C; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5PUgh7uaH9tQ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A27D1287A5; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9586; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501184416; x=1502394016; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=E+y2VPm1OSiE8KjU2UBtyqUNmWcQLiuyZWxCtCzCYck=; b=YyTLdFxPK5iXTWLDuA/rZSDSPhoRl/vJg2YT42uE8lSm8FPtkIa6ElMP OGzX9f1ZhmX8Mz6TMaj3GoFhKdZWEyCezAL+CMqP08493fxVf+ZmLLR6E hbGOYCidWTIse9mQCCAKbduT0GPmueJeNxLx7GGupc3LHR7hNPcwibR+s 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CbAAAHQXpZ/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbScHjgaRYpYKDoIELoUZAhqDSz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDIxFFDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIwFAEICAIEAQ0Fii8Qr3eCJos/AQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYELgh2IUoMmgRoBEgE2gnyCYQWfZgKHTYxWggx?= =?us-ascii?q?XhHuKXpVxAR84fwt3FR+HQgF2h0INFweBBYEOAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,421,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="279055754"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jul 2017 19:40:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6RJeFEh005235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:40:15 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:40:14 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:40:14 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@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///B3AA==
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:40:14 +0000
Message-ID: <D59FB934.BA3C3%acee@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>
In-Reply-To: <D59FB7D2.2CE8F1%rrahman@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5F4F735502F57F48980F9E9B2EC6F7A5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/mICPV9YYG2wwNradh2Dp-4TjObw>
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:40:27 -0000

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>;; 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>