Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE36120137; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:27:50 -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 header.b=F17DljPS; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Uj05FCOw
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 jBYgD594Atj7; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3928C12015B; Tue, 14 May 2019 10:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=35917; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557854865; x=1559064465; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=NaD8Cb+/PNF/o43WEAggkXpS09NBEgtm/DCd/WEq19U=; b=F17DljPSs/Ctlzd1lbtP05afAbtzhpHKjd2I1D0ZGj1QgWY2Ug0rSGxH WqdqO+Kria7lsw4Z3lcyzT44RMbaeFNbAlZvHaJ94z3+L6zlPsHUJyXCa /EnAPM1zTDo7lBB+Cfw1sKoWVOTAEoQqne0GlNngNETgwxzX7nI+RGNUi 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ATl8IzBQCwQgGdpwF4QvfbaJrwtpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBdfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOjYgFcRHXVlN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANAABT+dpc/49dJa1aChoBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBBwIBAQEBgVIEAQEBAQsBgQ4vUANpVSAECyiEEYNHA45/gleJP41mgS6?= =?us-ascii?q?BJANUCQEBAQwBARgBCgoCAQGEQAIXggYjNQgOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBAEBEBEdAQEsCwEPAgEIDgMDAQIhCgICAh8GCx0IAgQBDQUigwABgR1NAx0?= =?us-ascii?q?BDqBnAoE1iF9xgS+CeQEBBYUCDQuCDwMGgTMBiguBQxeBQD+BEAEnH4IeLj6?= =?us-ascii?q?CGkcBAQIBgTNCCQaCZDKCBCKNYIRTiBCMYTkJAoIJhiGIZwSDUhuCFIpAiRq?= =?us-ascii?q?MNIEihTaBT4xjAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFQATYpgS5wFTsqAYJBgg83gziEWTuFPgF?= =?us-ascii?q?yAQuBHY9GAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,469,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="271001109"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 14 May 2019 17:27:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4EHRhQ6025926 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 14 May 2019 12:27:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 14 May 2019 12:27:42 -0500
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 14 May 2019 12:27:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NaD8Cb+/PNF/o43WEAggkXpS09NBEgtm/DCd/WEq19U=; b=Uj05FCOwnshODDCURI7s2R8cOPrumvw9eor/lGSt0pArZYOEEoI397hFTwIHdzcXAJabsM2mhI4TpIEgxvrkRaGlLZEQgd6FboI+Bpe3JJwkk3NeJUC+1E3xv/f9t9gam7wMbSYs49Teixdb0s+/4YCX8EUDKTsNW+TI6cD0/hA=
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.104.151) by DM5PR1101MB2363.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.174.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1878.22; Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27:41 +0000
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde]) by DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1878.024; Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27:41 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, Ebben Aries <exa@arrcus.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10
Thread-Index: AQHVAg3aWXDUm82pK0uCi6qbpHp+4KZpJqCAgAGcwYD//9p/gIAAD58A
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27:40 +0000
Message-ID: <6D7F1DEA-ECFF-4E3B-A2FE-EA1224DDBFEA@cisco.com>
References: <155692863223.7173.7717533907709205656@ietfa.amsl.com> <EC71AEDD-6D31-440C-A6BB-1BBE3D931702@cisco.com> <BN8PR06MB6289AC30D85BC3D22693C65CFC080@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <9653FA2D-4C36-443F-B462-89D788B9E8FC@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9653FA2D-4C36-443F-B462-89D788B9E8FC@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.6.190114
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:2840:1250:2421:2f0a:1dbc:638e]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 17162fae-a3bb-4c10-8bdf-08d6d89177bc
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2363;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR1101MB2363:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 9
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR1101MB2363F70389E207A783B0EDB8AB080@DM5PR1101MB2363.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3383;
x-forefront-prvs: 0037FD6480
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(136003)(39860400002)(37854004)(199004)(189003)(6306002)(229853002)(25786009)(8936002)(6512007)(6116002)(99286004)(9326002)(186003)(110136005)(6506007)(68736007)(6486002)(54896002)(2501003)(81156014)(256004)(86362001)(102836004)(6436002)(71200400001)(58126008)(7736002)(76176011)(71190400001)(316002)(14444005)(14454004)(8676002)(81166006)(82746002)(5660300002)(11346002)(54906003)(6246003)(2616005)(4326008)(476003)(53546011)(966005)(46003)(478600001)(33656002)(83716004)(66946007)(66556008)(53936002)(446003)(66446008)(76116006)(73956011)(64756008)(66476007)(36756003)(486006)(91956017)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2363; H:DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XYhl+7O65ynYM7LqGfOF7OFOOKUs3lUq0T5BYlHokLkh0GMbeXtFvwL8SKcK9ZcaGzyhj60pEqtGNj/TzdPxlJS0ieimiaTtmEeFyOdd48P/Io0TSmBTU3xSBfTYAMWlnBD7SsYxztmTUMwvJjONxZIAgHhQcBGKGUxsvlwxZXj8V7MQh3+63dTl3Fyp3wO3bnAsTBLQQ7f4WVco7/5dGZTZKq+JEFMKp8tfM+ucriT4qvkMDQhxRr251AgEbWMX6DdTkaLdKS0dGn2a5CFtiBub/qSqmqUzk4+3dhqoTTPSxTIusVO8PivoU7N0s16uB3V7NwF2owCSf0BTOGBbENm5JEscc7AwqopRg8g0lTRic5I0qzRwSCfzP2tzLO82G6CEjeLCqzGhHmhbOXeSA12VknygYcRC6ePi/7yhK2A=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6D7F1DEAECFF4E3BA2FEEA1224DDBFEAciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 17162fae-a3bb-4c10-8bdf-08d6d89177bc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 May 2019 17:27:40.9456 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR1101MB2363
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/nNdUZVgxfJiMOC6glsQjqjsj6Vk>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 17:27:51 -0000

Hi Tarek,

I stand corrected. As you’ve pointed out this is a read-only list and Xpath filter can be used, no need for “meaningful” keys.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:31 PM
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org>;
Cc: "yang-doctors@ietf.org"; <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;, "teas@ietf.org"; <teas@ietf.org>;, Ebben Aries <exa@arrcus.com>;
Subject: Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10

Hi Tarek,

If a user wants to have information for a specific 2205 session or a 3209 session, an artificial key or no key doesn’t help for that situation: the whole list has to be read until the session is found. Why not have separate lists (under a container) for the different session types, that way you can have meaningful keys for the 2205 and 3209 sessions.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 10:46 AM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>;, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp.all@ietf.org>;
Cc: "yang-doctors@ietf.org"; <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;, "teas@ietf.org"; <teas@ietf.org>;, Ebben Aries <exa@arrcus.com>;
Subject: Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-10


Hi Reshad,



Base RSVP RFC2205 defines the session as. "An RSVP session is defined by the triple: (DestAddress, ProtocolId      [, DstPort])." RFC3209 defines a session object for RSVP-TE LSP(s) as tuple (tunnel endpoint, tunnel ID, extended tunnel ID). Since keys are mandatory leafs for lists, and to make it generic, we thought of a having an independent index key for the list.

Thinking more of it now, since the list is state/read-only, the key is optional and omitting it may be better. We can consider this in the next update to the document, thanks for pointing it out.



Regards,

Tarek





On 5/13/19, 2:09 PM, "Teas on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rrahman@cisco.com>; wrote:



    Hi,



    Question to the authors (I haven't followed this draft so apologies if I'm trying to revive a dead horse): why is there an artificial index (leaf local-index) for the sessions list, why not uniquely identify the session with destination address etc? Is it because there are different types of sessions?



    Regards,

    Reshad.





    On 2019-05-03, 8:11 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Ebben Aries via Datatracker" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:



        Reviewer: Ebben Aries

        Review result: On the Right Track



        2 modules in this draft:

        - ietf-rsvp@2019-02-18.yang

        - ietf-rsvp-extended@2019-02-18.yang



        No YANG compiler errors or warnings (pyang 2.0, yanglint 1.1.16, confdc 6.6.1)



        Module ietf-rsvp@2019-02-18.yang:

        - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B

        - Use of 'state' containers.  It is stated in Section 2.3 that 'Derived state

          data is contained under a "state" container...'.  My only comments here are:

          a) Should use caution when using 'state' containers in NMDA compliant

          modules.  Rob put together a nice doc here that I won't reiterate:

          https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki/NMDA-Modelling-FAQ

          Using such nomenclature locks you into r/o nodes only.

          b) In some cases, the hierarchy is a bit redundant (statistics/state).

          Other NMDA compliant modules will not introduce another 'state' hierarchy

          for instance (see ietf-interfaces)

        - leaf 'packet-len' is abbreviated while most other leafs are not

        - authentication-key is of type string.  Is this leaf mean to be clear-text?

          There is nothing associated with this type that would imply special

          treatment in handling.

        - crypto-algorithm: Are all identities from ietf-key-chain supported?

        - Pluralization on counters:  e.g. 'in-error' vs. 'in-errors'. Maintain

          consistency with other modules (see ietf-interfaces)

        - Normative references are missing for some of the modules imported.  These

          must be added per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9



        Module ietf-rsvp-extended@2019-02-18.yang:

        - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#appendix-B

        - Use of 'state' containers.  It is stated in Section 2.3 that 'Derived state

          data is contained under a "state" container...'.  My only comments here are:

          a) Should use caution when using 'state' containers in NMDA compliant

          modules.  Rob put together a nice doc here that I won't reiterate:

          https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki/NMDA-Modelling-FAQ

          Using such nomenclature locks you into r/o nodes only.

          b) In some cases, the hierarchy is a bit redundant (statistics/state).

          Other NMDA compliant modules will not introduce another 'state' hierarchy

          for instance (see ietf-interfaces)

        - Pluralization on counters:  e.g. 'in-error' vs. 'in-errors'. Maintain

          consistency with other modules (see ietf-interfaces)

        - 9 features are defined with no 'if-feature' statements.  Where are these

          feature conditions meant to be used?

        - Normative references are missing for some of the modules imported.  These

          must be added per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9





        General comments on the draft/modules:

        - The state container and list key designs appear very familiar to that of

          OpenConfig modules however not consistent with IETF module design.

          Consistency is key from each producing entity (e.g. IETF in this case)

        - The draft mentions RPCs and Notifications however none are defined within

          the modules

        - Section 2.3: Has examples of RPCs and Notifications that are non-existant in

          the modules

        - Abstract: s/RVSP/RSVP/

        - Abstract: s/remote procedural/remote procedure/

        - Section 2: s/extensiion/extension/

        - Section 4: Update the security considerations section to adhere to

          https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.7 and

          https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines

        - Various (missing) wording/pluralization cleanup throughout that I'll defer

          to the RFC Editor.  A once over proofread should solve this.



        _______________________________________________

        yang-doctors mailing list

        yang-doctors@ietf.org

        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors





    _______________________________________________

    Teas mailing list

    Teas@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas