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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 28 July 2017 22:57 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 438B8131461; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:58 -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 oNOTlj6IlGe0; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 F2884131E77; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x3so140525066oia.1; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:54 -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=h9aElpnNyDtCz2R+kTgEx2xdOEl0+aqymRK4OWs6gLE=; b=egY0/FVc39epVgaiuvwoYjbllTmgBLovPrTGCjRBlgYbuKT0y/Jpgz7cSIT6CMHfYO Q6UhzcGe/0JFSWYLk1tva5b3jYQkMvu4K7uAenp6IHzXdZbLr+pYD1h8o4V6atZU4452 PjGpvMq2Iw34Q54ApPSlNj/PO9swWyvDb+gx347jmo9CR5hvJL4NNy7hrOLQUxizQadF +/CRMQF1srIg8iZL0+/tRU3q/3foiSlcIISRNICTNR6JlEiWxsihf4gjpmuTcwgqLZzG 835qdIY7TpdVON4mTf+alWTATDHHfjiUULajpEMTeUpXUTL0zZEmwl8QhPbSjb1PAXmF iiMQ==
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=h9aElpnNyDtCz2R+kTgEx2xdOEl0+aqymRK4OWs6gLE=; b=kVcLHWcRLKmgj0TO2OT3AEkyO7qmXlTG3HCKaotlgqm+zuccZVRT1Y8PbPOoBS8auH MwmeFv4AC+ifefs5XQyyRxq7L+i2WS90OTNLUBPzV5lCXq6Jw9MykRxQn6HZFfinR4Wo lPOt75EXnL02QE/ikwHMAk79lysj1z2ukkZiPVmsRB5Z4m+pDr84NEty+A7VngkRkCGl DWaWTCldaIURC/uvsCOkAUvHfOz2/H96cG9AQ66lCferWYqPA8cBQ9YJZ3YPh4MvEtKr RQYypQZsSI1p3h5aeJqy7heZlp2dDOaKBWHeM5U+ze+T8rfoUuZ047Q7/tbNZzCcojtE 9o7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111QsvhzloKAhVhAgrqO442CbUNuwFltmOMJzL5dBRvI+8OBWAlC yWPirMpmpw4iaw==
X-Received: by 10.202.73.20 with SMTP id w20mr8655475oia.27.1501282674311; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:54 -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 s186sm19761038oia.6.2017.07.28.15.57.52 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:57:53 -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: <E4E310A2-A79C-403E-B68E-A39B76E2C5E0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:58:06 -0700
Cc: 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>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <773E4FFC-D66A-49E5-A03A-58B7DBA82D90@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> <E4E310A2-A79C-403E-B68E-A39B76E2C5E0@gmail.com>
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/w3Dacq2BW7hUHWT_xJAZVWInqHY>
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 22:57:58 -0000

The changes are done and pushed to GitHub. Use the grouping client-cfg-parms.

> On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> 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>;; 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
> 
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com