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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 31 July 2017 19:05 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 0B0EF132779; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:05:44 -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 3MACB_yMB0zH; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD583132792; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16216; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1501527941; x=1502737541; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=JKXMQRBdfybXW3ux9kPy2vseGAm3jLcVMh75/5S4wqQ=; b=QTGD+oBWmVBdcL6CS67t3CoPiyryhXTKXdbVTm/oZQKFfDF2kJIm/dfF O8aMbg1FudCF0HD2QUdo05MXxIDIDcVQ3AdU+sQZ/k/0ID9wxvKWpUqEv wqdZf+OMvaNeBQQVzkPj9iNuoQ+4vy9JSdZC0hSOrcMtXoaOhFxJOjN72 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DNAAAHf39Z/4cNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkgQISB44Gj3mBa4gxjVoOggQshRsCGoNuPxgBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUYAQEBAQMjEUUMBAIBBgIRBAEBAQICIwMCAgIfERQBCAgCBAENBYoXAxUQk?= =?us-ascii?q?D2dZIImhy4NhAkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuCHYhVgldQgRoBEgE?= =?us-ascii?q?fF4J8gmEBBIl+lTU8AodNhxtMhHGCDBk+hHuKX4wbiVYBHzh/C3cVH4VAHIFmA?= =?us-ascii?q?XaHcQ0XB4EFgQ4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,304,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="463734437"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 31 Jul 2017 19:05:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6VJ5bGD032001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:05:38 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:05:37 -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; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:05:36 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
CC: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, 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>
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///B3AIAAawoAgAAI1YCAAX70gIAC3ooAgADASYCAAH0vAIAAMM8A
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:05:36 +0000
Message-ID: <D5A4F795.BB7F8%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> <D59FB934.BA3C3%acee@cisco.com> <D59FBE2A.2CEA06%rrahman@cisco.com> <D5A01A7B.BA49E%acee@cisco.com> <C71CC69E-DAE4-49E0-983A-9B2EE9B4CD46@gmail.com> <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B5388E1@dfweml501-mbx> <0CF89DCC-4DC1-414C-8D13-51106B10D6F7@gmail.com> <D5A4CE19.BB701%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5A4CE19.BB701%acee@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: [10.24.24.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E6A791CF53C6D14382868691AD9B30EC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/xcSiZ7zoBHam_q2po83wdzT9zOY>
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 19:05:44 -0000

Sigh, I mean “why don’t you add ‘enabled’…"

On 7/31/17, 2:56 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:

>Hi Mahesh, 
>
>On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>;
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I don’t add ‘enabled’ to the client-cfg-parms? Then a client would only
>need a single grouping.


>
>Thanks,
>Acee 
>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;
>>>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:mjethanandani@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM
>>> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>;
>>> Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>;; Yingzhen Qu
>>><yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;; Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>;;
>>>rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org;
>>>draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org
>>> 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) <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
>>>>> -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)" <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-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/yan
>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang>
>>
>>Mahesh Jethanandani
>>mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>
>