Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 D9BC8130E3B for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 r_DVbcrC44DQ for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22b.google.com (mail-yb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22b]) (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 50602130E4B for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id s1-v6so3152820ybk.3 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6OYnooEKwzJzUJlb+OgMEPONVUBu0ZQKdssDFlWQhRk=; b=VgYoHHHZJXekV+qxEGx+jJ4j2luyZQVCwS1pHO0Uak5CDmy7Um0x/FDsCTNYp5Q7jC jcieDA55KYQrYrQrav9xYc5fh4j04SXabgaV3BpMemi4oi4KlAtQ6CcgdM7veBAJTDMr HB3ErCDCBJkvLxBrhlJdphFsavPYUbmXVT0ugKyIXK9oqd9jKASa9qTJ09oph/elSGp4 /crRrzZNgXVn4TamtY6/L1t4SzbJI1faDMtqkqKLIQFrpIU/HNcEvT/NDEmfA4e7yIh3 65oLDq3u1mNtOhKAC9z7O+bGFDnwECJCQfzDZ16KWuzi9oEt+UcpNL3R4Ih2+kwAslsp G+UA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6OYnooEKwzJzUJlb+OgMEPONVUBu0ZQKdssDFlWQhRk=; b=BHyEEQzLBPXs6cWsPRF/FCjsuCD7kDWobwO9L3xYtdbNGFJq8Y3P1D6c8RnYCL5t1f lxOMBUVznD62+j0I7tGZRA2XCJUGr/Hyd17XWiLFF4zwJFdnWFnBMD4GEiaE6wPoA2tu FuPBzlfouotXDPn6LhQKn7I3WLmwwnwM/4C4kHK62+kevCZFYBABjPyea+yP0zMN2teA ukOUc7vOOmij44wJZViIAI+nU6oNeQ13xBquwjwDvUhxgyrHMQ6i73DFZHHlKYykR9/7 Iwke44gI6sfQUyMFeHpowWu3qUktd559WjjLCcwa6lPwNVVF48OQL+sgx1ybZ2J0TQZr UbbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E06YOzvRDCg5UxISvs6wjYNhHA6it+aXmGApB2QfcQXNqpfq7F/ bEe5WUsqUZw9uNyyPgnKTa2PPGyz9sCaTHCOXfwoJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcrMIN3sS7nnK17zo/WfF2n6mHlxsJzU9AfAELqHuBZOiN8oVqIc2YNczsAIJC/efMx1Nc1jTLzHJo02kYVXrI=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b84d:: with SMTP id b13-v6mr3050755ybm.501.1530794778456; Thu, 05 Jul 2018 05:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a81:6b83:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 05:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <490A33FD-E9F4-4798-B770-7D43BB962F8E@cisco.com>
References: <153074359709.27286.9248456135858358472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <490A33FD-E9F4-4798-B770-7D43BB962F8E@cisco.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 05:45:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM5fQCU4sSOBFWRuM9OCFEyaGuAbhFoNV9ACAaPqKO3sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "jhaas@pfrc.org" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" <bfd-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe937105703feebb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/t8R5f5wKc9MKYj66qEh8K57CXxA>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 05 Jul 2018 12:46:26 -0000

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review, please see inline <RR>.
>
> On 2018-07-04, 6:33 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>     Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: No Objection
>
>     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>     introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>     Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Rich version of this review at:
>     https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374
>
>
>
>     COMMENTS
>     S 2.1.4.
>     >              Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets.
>     >
>     >   2.1.4.  MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels
>     >
>     >      For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel
> since
>     >      the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the
> MPLS-TE
>
>     "parameters are"
>
> <RR> Change made, will be in the next rev.
>
>     S 2.8.
>     >
>     >   2.8.  BFD over LAG hierarchy
>     >
>     >      A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in
> control-plane-protocol.
>     >      The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG
> session
>     >      is under this "lag" node.
>
>     There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is
>     it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common?
>
>     <RR> There is replication in that the different modules have similar
> information as you pointed out. But this is done via groupings, so the
> information such as number of sessions, number of sessions up etc is
> defined once and used in multiple locations.
>

Yes, but can't you incorporate the definitions by references so that the
diagrams are easier to read?

-Ekr

Regards,
> Reshad.
>
>
>