Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-04

Thanks Rob!

Dear authors,

please publish the updated draft ASAP.

Thanks! 

Jeff

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 07:23
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp@ietf.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-04

Hi Alia, authors,

Separately when doing the NMDA conversion on the VRRP module, I noted that it is directly augmenting the "/interfaces-state" container (rather than "/interfaces-state/interface" directly with "VRRP-global" container, which looked a bit odd to me (and broke my conversion tool ;-).

E.g. 

  augment /if:interfaces-state:
    +--ro vrrp-global
       +--ro virtual-routers?   uint32
       +--ro interfaces?        uint32
       +--ro statistics
          +--ro discontinuity-datetime?   yang:date-and-time
          +--ro checksum-errors?          yang:counter64
          +--ro version-errors?           yang:counter64
          +--ro vrid-errors?              yang:counter64
          +--ro ip-ttl-errors?            yang:counter64

This naively seems like the wrong place to me, and I think that it would be better to place this either as a top level "vrrp" container, or perhaps put under the routing tree (e.g. /routing/control-plane-protocols/vrrp).

I would have thought that putting this directly under the /interfaces-state container would mean that the /interfaces-state container could hold an interleaved mix of interface list entries and the vrrp-global container!?!

E.g. I think that with the model the existing design then this following XML would be allowed - cc Martin in case I am wrong :-) 
       <interfaces-state
           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
           xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">

         <interface>
           <name>eth0</name>
           <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
           <admin-status>down</admin-status>
           <oper-status>down</oper-status>
           ...
         </interface>

         <vrrp-global>
            ....
         </vrrp-global>

         <interface>
           <name>eth1</name>
           <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
           <admin-status>up</admin-status>
           <oper-status>up</oper-status>
           ....
         </interface>

         <interface>
           <name>eth1.10</name>
           <type>ianaift:l2vlan</type>
           <admin-status>up</admin-status>
           <oper-status>up</oper-status>
           ....
         </interface>
     </interfaces-state>
Thanks,
Rob

On 20/09/2017 17:35, Alia Atlas wrote:

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-04. First, I would like to thank the authors, Xufeng, Athanasios, Ravi, Acee,and Mingui, as well as the WG for their work on this draft.  It is clear and well-written. 

My one issue is that it does not conform to the NMDA guidelines. I know that the transformation can be done largely programmatically - and Acee & Xufeng are quite familiar with the details.  I've also cc'd Rob Wilton who has some tooling to potentially help.

>From the shepherd's report, I understand that there is an implementation. That implies that the existing model should be in the appendix.

I would be delighted to forward this draft to IETF Last Call (and my apologies for the long delay in review) after it has been updated.

Thanks,

Alia

_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg 