RE: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp

The Revised Datastore Draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01) is the latest approach to address this issue. Before the solution is finalized, NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols are updated, and implementations are available, we still have the field duplications meanwhile.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 1:30 PM
> To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>; Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> Cc: Athanasios Kyparlis <Athanasios_Kyparlis@jabil.com>;
> parikhr@vmware.com; Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henning Rogge" <hrogge@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 7:49 AM
> >
> > yes I think the new changes improve the draft and make it easier to
> understand.
> >
> > I wonder if there is a way in YANG to prevent the duplication of all
> > the fields between "interface" and "interface-state"... putting the
> > common fields into a section of their own and refer to them twice,
> > once as "read only" and once "read-writeable".
> 
> No:-(
> 
> This has become a thorny and vexed question with lots of solutions whose
> benefits depend on where you are coming from with no consensus among the
> interested parties. NETCONF/YANG set out to support configuration which is
> defined as something writeable. Read only, well it was not ignored but it did
> take a back seat since SNMP was already handling that part of network
> management.  A requirement emerged to know what the results were of a
> configuration change.  I enable an interface; is it now enabled?  I set an
> interface card to auto; what speed is it running at?  Clearly there are 'twin'
> objects, sometimes triads or more.  Rather late in the day it emerged that in
> YANG read-only objects that are below a read-write object that has not been
> written do not exist.  This led to the twin trees approach that is widely used, one
> tree for read-only, one for read-write.
> 
> Other dimensions of this problem are the need either for configuration to come
> first and a hot-plugged card to pick up the configuration or for hot-plugging to
> come first and then the card be configured; and for the box to provide default
> values to minimise the configuration needed and for the NMS to know what the
> defaults are but not to have to read them all.
> 
> Discussions on this go back to 2008 and continue; meanwhile the number of
> YANG modules ever increases making changes ever more expensive.
> 
> I like your idea but suspect that it will not gain traction.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > Henning Rogge
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Henning,
> > >
> > > Please review if the attached change proposal is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > > - Xufeng
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Xufeng Liu
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:18 AM
> > >> To: 'Henning Rogge' <hrogge@gmail.com>
> > >> Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>;
> Athanasios
> > >> Kyparlis <Athanasios_Kyparlis@jabil.com>; parikhr@vmware.com;
> > >> zhangmingui@huawei.com; Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> > >> Subject: RE: Routing directorate QA review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
> > >>
> > >> Hi Henning,
> > >>
> > >> Yes. We will add some explanations.
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> - Xufeng
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@gmail.com]
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:50 AM
> > >> > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> > >> > Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>;
> Athanasios
> > >> > Kyparlis <Athanasios_Kyparlis@jabil.com>; parikhr@vmware.com;
> > >> > zhangmingui@huawei.com; Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> > >> > Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of
> > >> > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Xufeng Liu
> <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi Henning,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thank you much for the review.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You are right about the mapping for "address of the virtual
> router".
> > >> > > The
> > >> > existing YANG data model for configuring and managing IP
> addresses is
> > >> > RFC7277, which augments the ietf-interfaces model specified by
> > >> > RFC7223. This VRRP model follows the same paradigm. Such a
> structure
> > >> > is also VRRP protocols are usually implemented.
> > >> >
> > >> > Maybe the naming of the variables or the explanation of them
> could be
> > >> > improved to explicitly state this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Henning
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We will fix the error in  Appendix A. in the next revision.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Xufeng
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:hrogge@gmail.com]
> > >> > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 3:41 AM
> > >> > > To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>;
> Xufeng Liu
> > >> > > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>; Athanasios Kyparlis
> > >> > > <Athanasios_Kyparlis@jabil.com>; parikhr@vmware.com;
> > >> > > zhangmingui@huawei.com
> > >> > > Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> > >> > > Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of
> > >> > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jonathan Hardwick asked me to do an early review of the
> > >> > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-
> > >> > yang-vrrp document (currently revision 02) for the routing
> directorate.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The draft itself is pretty straight forward and compact,
> especially
> > >> > > when you
> > >> > consider that a lot of text has to be repeated two or four times
> > >> > (IPv4/IPv6, config vs. read-only state).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But I had quite a bit of trouble mapping the phrases from the
> new
> > >> > > draft-ietf-
> > >> > rtgwg-yang-vrrp-02 document to the existing VRRP documents (e.g.
> RFC5798).
> > >> > This might come from my unfamilarity with VRRP.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The draft YANG model allows to read (if:interfaces-state) and
> > >> > > configure
> > >> > (if:interfaces) virtual IP addresses, but this does not seem to
> be a
> > >> > common phrase from the RFCs. Is it the same as "address of the
> virtual
> > >> > router" often mentioned in RFC5798?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In addition to this, I found (I think) a typo or inconsistency
> in Appendix A:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > the ascii art says "eth0" but tree says "eth1".
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Henning Rogge
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Hardwick
> > >> > <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi Henning
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Please would you do a routing directorate early review of this
> > >> > > draft?  Would
> > >> > you be able to do it in 2 to 3 weeks?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Many thanks
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jon
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Please would you do a routing directorate QA review of this
> draft?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The draft is still in the RTGWG and is ready for WG last call.
> The
> > >> > > WG chairs
> > >> > have asked for a QA review from the directorate.  The following
> link
> > >> > provides guidance on QA reviews.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg