Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 06:50 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F961286E3; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dnYzf-sFURtW; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07FEE12870E; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42g19W1YG4z2y1j; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:50:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.60]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42g19W09fjzCqkw; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:50:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM7F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c1d7:e278:e357:11ad%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:50:38 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-yang.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06
Thread-Index: AQHUa2M7Wvr+EyZx90+yNOq28uTh+qUt8mfg
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:50:37 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E025B62@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E019B52@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20181023.153003.558721163541938191.mbj@tail-f.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E019F79@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20181024.083145.456303270328710769.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181024.083145.456303270328710769.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/q63t-a5MEA_g-i4GBey6OkZNasA>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:50:46 -0000
Hi Martin, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 24 octobre 2018 08:32 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > Cc : yang-doctors@ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire- > yang.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Objet : Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06 > > Hi, > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > Re-, > > > > Fixed the first two ones in my local copy. > > > > id is optional. I'm maintaining it because it is already used by some > > implementations. > > Ok, but these implementations propably need to change anyway since the > "id" is no longer the key. [Med] Yes. > > I will just point out that having one key and another integer based > identifier that doesn't serve any purpose looks a bit odd. But if the > WG thinks that it is needed then that's fine (although in this case I > suggest you add some text to the descriptions of these leafs that > explain what the purpose is). > > > I had a closer look at the iana-tunnel-type module and the > instructions to IANA, and I think that you could make some minor > clarificiations: > > In the module description, you have: > > This module contains a collection of YANG data types defined > by IANA and used for tunnel types. > > perhaps write: > > This module contains a collection of YANG identities defined > by IANA and used as interface types for tunnel interfaces. > [Med] Works for me. > And in the IANA Considerations section you have: > > > "base": Contains the value of the tunnel type in lowercase. > > maybe instead > > "base": Contains the string "ift:tunnel". > > > [Med] That text is referring to the table in https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6. We can change the text for better clarity to: "base": Contains the name assigned to the tunnel type, in lowercase. > > /martin > > > > > > > Thank you again for the review. Much appreciated! > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] > > > Envoyé : mardi 23 octobre 2018 15:30 > > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > > > Cc : yang-doctors@ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire- > > > yang.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > > > Objet : Re: Yangdoctors last call review of > > > draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks for the quick update! > > > > > > I have looked at -11, and have just a few minor comments. > > > > > > o Section 5.1 > > > > > > Maybe the tree diagram needs to be re-generated; at least: > > > > > > | +--rw bind-instance* [id] > > > > > > should be > > > > > > | +--rw bind-instance* [name] > > > > > > > > > > > > o Section 8 > > > > > > > > > leaf softwire-num-max { > > > type uint32; > > > must ". >= 1"; > > > > > > This should be: > > > > > > leaf softwire-num-max { > > > type uint32 { > > > range "1..max"; > > > } > > > > > > > > > o Section 8 > > > > > > Since you now have "name" as key in the lists, is the leaf "id" > > > still needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > > > Re-, > > > > > > > > Please see inline. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Med > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > De : Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] > > > > > Envoyé : mardi 23 octobre 2018 10:05 > > > > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN > > > > > Cc : yang-doctors@ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire- > > > > > yang.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > > > > > Objet : Re: Yangdoctors last call review of > > > > > draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06 > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > We released a new revision -08 to address your comments. We will > > > > > > double check the formatting and issue another iteration if needed. > > > > > > > > > > Thank's for addressing my comments. See inline and at the end for > > > > > some new comments on -08. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Med > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > > > De : Martin Björklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] > > > > > > > Envoyé : lundi 15 octobre 2018 11:00 > > > > > > > À : yang-doctors@ietf.org > > > > > > > Cc : softwires@ietf.org; draft-ietf-softwire-yang.all@ietf.org; > > > > > ietf@ietf.org > > > > > > > Objet : Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang- > 06 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewer: Martin Björklund > > > > > > > Review result: Ready with Issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my YANG doctor review of draft-ietf-softwire-yang-06. > The > > > > > > > review focuses on YANG-specifics only, since I am not familiar > with > > > > > > > the technology that is modelled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o I would like to see all Tom Petch's comments in his three > replies > > > > > > > to the IETF LC for this document addressed. Especially his > > > comment > > > > > > > about using ianatf:tunnel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] This is fixed in -07. A new tunnel-type parameter is defined > > > > > > to handle this. > > > > > > > > > > I think that the addition of identities for various tunnel types that > > > > > derive from ift:tunnel is the right thing to do. > > > > > > > > [Med] OK, thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, since these identities derive from ift:tunnel, the > > > > > augmentation of ietf-interfaces in ietf-interface-tunnel is not > > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > [Med] ietf-interface-tunnel tries to preserve a similar structure as > > > > in > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, but > > > you are > > > right we can get rid of it. > > > > > > > > Instead, the new identities should be used as if:type > > > > > directly. For example, instead of: > > > > > > > > > > <interface xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if- > type"> > > > > > <name>lw4o6-wan</name> > > > > > <type>ianaift:tunnel</type> > > > > > <tunnel-type > > > > > xmlns:iana-tunnel-type="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana- > tunnel- > > > type"> > > > > > iana-tunnel-type:aplusp > > > > > </tunnel-type> > > > > > ... > > > > > </interface> > > > > > > > > > > you should do: > > > > > > > > > > <interface> > > > > > xmlns:iana-tunnel-type="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana- > tunnel- > > > type"> > > > > > <name>lw4o6-wan</name> > > > > > <type>iana-tunnel-type:aplusp</type> > > > > > ... > > > > > </interface> > > > > > > > > > > So, I think you should remove the ietf-tunnel-type module. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An additional comment on the identities in iana-tunnel-type; for each > > > > > identity, I think you should add a "reference" statement that points > > > > > to the RFC(s) that define the tunnel. (available in the IANA > registry > > > > > at > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi- > > > numbers-5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] I guess you meant > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi- > > > numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6. Fixed in my local copy, except form > > > IPHTTPS for > > > which we don't have an RFC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o The term "instance" is used to mean - I think - the "device". > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] It is used to mean function rather than device. A device may > > > > > > enable multiple instances of the same function. > > > > > > > > > > But you have for example in the description of "binding-mode": > > > > > > > > > > This feature indicates that the instance functions as a binding > > > > > based softwire instance. > > > > > > > > > > And in container algo-instances you have: > > > > > > > > > > The instances advertise the MAP-E/MAP-T > > > > > feature through the capability exchange mechanism > > > > > when a NETCONF session is established." > > > > > > > > > > Unless your intentation is that one "instance" == one "function" == > > > > > one NETCONF server, then this text is not correct. > > > > > > > > > > So I am a bit confused - if the device advertises the feature > > > > > "binding-mode" it means that "it functions as a binding based > softwire > > > > > instance". Maybe you mean something along the lines of > > > > > > > > > > This feature indicates that the network element can function as > > > > > one or more binding based softwire instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] This is it. Updates when appropriate. > > > > > > > > > (I don't know if you want to use the term "network element" or > > > > > something else.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Network element is fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also there is similar text for the features map-e and map-t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Yes. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, if this meaning of the word "instance" is defined somewhere, > > > > > I suggest you add a reference to that other doc; or else explain this > > > > > meaning in 1.1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] added to the terminology section: > > > > > > > > A network element may support one or multiple instances of a > softwire > > > > mechanism; each of these instances may have its own configuration > and > > > > parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > didn't find this term in the RFCs 7596, 7597 or 7599. I > suggest > > > > > > > you use some other term, since "instance" is quite generic, > and is > > > > > > > often used to refer to instances of YANG data nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, does the term "instance" mean the same thing in > > > > > > > "algo-instance"? And in "br-instances"? "bind-instance"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] algo-instance means an instance of type > > > > > > algorithm. br-instances denotes a set of br instances, and > > > > > > bind-instance means an instance of type binding. > > > > > > > > > > I could guess that. I think the issue is when the word "instance" is > > > > > used unqualified. > > > > > > > > [Med] Updated to avoid unqualified "instances" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o In ietf-softwire-common: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grouping algorithm-instance { > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > "Indicates that the instance supports the MAP-E and MAP-T > > > > > > > function. The instance advertises the MAP-E/MAP-T feature > > > > > > > through the capability exchange mechanism when a NETCONF > > > > > > > session is established."; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This description does not seem right. A grouping can't > indicate > > > > > > > anything. Also, what is "the MAP-E/MAP-T feature"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o In ietf-softwire-ce: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A similar description is found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > container algo-instances { > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > "Indicates that the instances supports the MAP-E and > MAP- > > > T > > > > > > > function. The instances advertise the MAP-E/MAP-T > > > > > > > feature through the capability exchange mechanism > > > > > > > when a NETCONF session is established."; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same comments apply. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > This text is still present, with a minor change: > > > > > > > > > > container algo-instances { > > > > > description > > > > > "Indicates that the instances supports the MAP-E and/or > MAP-T > > > > > function. The instances advertise the MAP-E/MAP-T > > > > > feature through the capability exchange mechanism > > > > > when a NETCONF session is established."; > > > > > > > > > > But since the container "algo-instances" is a non-presence container, > > > > > it can't "indicate" anything. This text needs to be rephrased. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Updated accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o In ietf-softwire-common: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > container algo-versioning { > > > > > > > description "algorithm's version"; > > > > > > > leaf version { > > > > > > > type uint64; > > > > > > > description "Incremental version number for the > algorithm"; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > leaf date { > > > > > > > type yang:date-and-time; > > > > > > > description "Timestamp to the algorithm"; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe these descriptions are crystal clear to someone who knows > the > > > > > > > technology. If so, perhaps add a reference to help the rest of > us? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] This is used for logging purposes. A reference to RFC7422 is > > > added. > > > > > > > > > > Ok. I still don't really understand how it is supposed to be used. > > > > > > > > > > When you write "version number for the algorithm", do you mean > > > > > "version number for this algo-instance"? > > > > > > > > [Med] What is meant is: > > > > > > > > "Incremental version number for the mapping > > > > algorithm rules provided to the algorithm instance"; > > > > > > > > An algorithm instance may be provided with mapping rules that may > > > > change in > > > time (for example, increase the size of the port set). When an abuse > > > party > > > presents an external IP address/port, the version of the algorithm is > > > important because depending on the version, a distinct customer may be > > > identified. The timestamp is used as a key to find the appropriate > > > algorithm > > > that was put into effect when an abuse occurred. > > > > > > > > Updated the description among these lines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are config true leafs; should they be config false and > > > > > internally managed by the server? > > > > > > > > [Med] This can be generated by the server or set by an operator. > > > > > > > > If not, I suppose an operator can > > > > > set them to any suitable values? If so, what does "incremental > > > > > version number" really mean? Is the server supposed to reject a > value > > > > > that is not "incremental"? > > > > > > > > [Med] What is important is to have a unique version number, how is set > > > > is > > > not important. Incremental seems to be straightforward, but one may > > > envisage > > > other ways to manage versions. I deleted "incremental". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it seems each "instance" has a numerical id (the key), > but > > > > > > > also a name (a string). Maybe there are protocol-reasons to do > > > > > > > this, but if not, did you consider using the "name" as key > instead? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] id/name is inspired from how NAT instances are managed (see > > > > > > RFC7659). The name is optional. > > > > > > > > > > Well, in MIBs instances are normally identified with integers b/c of > > > > > how the protocol (SNMP) works. In YANG modules, we usually use a > > > > > "name" that is a string to identify instances. With a string, the > > > > > operator can choose meaningful names, and use them in other leafrefs, > > > > > instead of having to remember how the names are mapped to integers. > > > > > > > > > > (Compare ifIndex (MIB) w/ interface/name (YANG)) > > > > > > > > > > So I suggest you use "name" as key. > > > > > > > > [Med] If you think this is better, I'm fine with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o I also note that you have changed the name of some lists in -08, > > > > > e.g., list "bind-instance" is now list "bind-instances" > > > > > (plural). Another example is: > > > > > > > > > > +--rw algo-instances > > > > > +--rw algo-instances* [id] > > > > > > > > > > I think you should change these back to singluar; that's what YANG > > > > > modules typically use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Med] Actually, this was a comment from Tom. Perhaps, we misunderstood > > > > it. > > > OK to change it back if this is the recommended practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > >
- [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of draft… Martin Björklund
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… tom petch
- Re: [Softwires] Yangdoctors last call review of d… mohamed.boucadair