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

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Yingzhen,

How do you plan to indicate to the BFD engine that the session is enabled?


> On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
> 
> For the enable flag, I'd prefer to have it defined directly in ospf instead of using a grouping from BFD. I'm not sure how useful this grouping is, am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 9:43 PM
> To: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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/iet
>>>> f
>>>> -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/ie
>>>>> t
>>>>> 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/ya
>>>>>>>>>> n
>>>>>>>>>> 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-0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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]