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

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.qu@huawei.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 08297124217; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 B05ItrCgHtZL; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D8F13215D; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLM23784; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:26:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.175) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:26:00 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.178]) by dfweml701-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.175]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:25:55 -0700
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.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///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YCAAOOAAP///DeAAAEH/JA=
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:25:54 +0000
Message-ID: <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B53867F@dfweml501-mbx>
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> <D5A0AFE7.2CF6C3%rrahman@cisco.com> <D5A0D683.BA6A6%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5A0D683.BA6A6%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.597B6599.0051, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f51b081ef726120ca0b85531009b970e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/pzjc1hL7i7vxkqSxPfu-g298gCQ>
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 16:26:07 -0000

Hi Reshad,

Thanks for the update and example. I'll get ospf part done this weekend.

Thanks,
Yingzhen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>om>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>om>; 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

Thanks much Reshad - Yingzhen will be adding but the ietf-ospf-bfd module to the OSPF model and draft.

Acee 

On 7/28/17, 11:08 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>Got rid of ietf-bfd-clients. I have added example-bfd-client module to 
>provide an example.
>
>Regards,
>Reshad.
>
>
>
>On 2017-07-27, 10:34 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/iet
>>>>f-b
>>>>f
>>>>d
>>>>-
>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>e
>>>>>>>>>t
>>>>>>>>>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/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>