Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt
Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 16 October 2017 12:49 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A911326ED; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 8wN5W4rGiFRW; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F601321BB; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 05:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10741; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508158160; x=1509367760; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ka7PG6B6jrtKBePgfY3kOgfgyo1qdSY9VSqGnAg2xnk=; b=l7Gj2HYoZVnoWtjTa7EC6haduCsiQ9uTNcaiPi/0M9aj+Kyqgbk78PFJ DK66jT2WFu+uYZcT74ZG4xEqf/HwL2NV+axJXDRIJlTCRWv65o0bnElgX Z9Eh/Q4/Ge0X8BehSuZRgylS3eFZx5FBH2A94+snRRNXjdwJJJ9Epyd2A Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,387,1503360000"; d="scan'208,217";a="656382127"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Oct 2017 12:49:18 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.135] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-135.cisco.com [10.63.23.135]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9GCnItV002434; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:49:18 GMT
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <150678074289.3430.13577948437978115990@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <f7e2450b-865f-6121-81ac-01e70f2ae049@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:49:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <150678074289.3430.13577948437978115990@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------89AEFD77F0BF8A832B3AF087"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/6ymLov3t0Cob8qdst5-498DmwFM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:49:23 -0000
Hi draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp draft authors, I have a couple of comments on the latest revision of this draft: 1) The top level "vrrp container" has the right name, but can be "config false" since it doesn't hold any configuration today. This is noting that RFC 7950 allows the "vrrp container" to become "config true" as a backwards compatible change in future if required. 2) I've also noticed that this draft defined two separate versions of the VRRP YANG module. The second version in the appendix is for pre-NMDA implementations: <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-vrrp@2017-09-25.yang" module ietf-vrrp { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vrrp"; prefix "vrrp"; And <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-vrrp@2017-09-22.yang" module ietf-vrrp { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vrrp"; prefix "vrrp"; Generically, I don't think that it is a good idea to define two versions of the same YANG module in one draft. If a backwards compatible NMDA version of a module is required, then an extra "-state" module should be put in the appendix instead (e.g. ietf-vrrp-state@2017-09-25.yang). This "-state" module could be used in conjunction with ietf-vrrp@2017-09-25.yang until NMDA implementations are available. Alternatively, if you must define an existing pre NMDA version of the VRRP module then it should definitely be given a different module name, e.g. ietf-vrrp-split-tree@2017-09-25.yang. But I believe that this would be an inferior solution since, compared to a separate "-state" module, it will make it harder for clients to migrate to the NMDA modules in future. Finally, having actually read at the main VRRP module, then on the assumption that VRRP is always configured before it is used, then the "NMDA version" may well be sufficient to use on both existing NETCONF implementations and NMDA compatible NETCONF implementations. The only thing that you can't see when using the NMDA version of the module on a "pre NMDA" implementation is the applied VRRP configuration. Whether this is important enough to not define the extra "-state" module is unclear, but my instinct would be that it is better to just leave it out. Thanks, Rob On 30/09/2017 15:12, 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 Routing Area Working Group WG of the IETF. > > Title : A YANG Data Model for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) > Authors : Xufeng Liu > Athanasios Kyparlis > Ravi Parikh > Acee Lindem > Mingui Zhang > Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt > Pages : 68 > Date : 2017-09-30 > > Abstract: > This document describes a data model for Virtual Router Redundancy > Protocol (VRRP). Both version 2 and version 3 of VRRP are covered. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05 > > > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > . >
- I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt internet-drafts
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt Robert Wilton
- RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt Xufeng Liu
- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt Robert Wilton