IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-lisp-yang-11

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 20 August 2019 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DCD1200B8; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 AiQ-uMW1D6cG; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B882E1200A3; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 14:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (172-222-100-236.dhcp.chtrptr.net [172.222.100.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DDA460195; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <624A552C-CF02-4716-A7C1-2A12DD6826C6@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BFBDA6AD-3B48-4409-A73A-054D52672DAA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 17:14:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <69983428-3A0C-4DAB-857E-75586DCE27D0@cisco.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-yang.all@ietf.org>
To: "Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal)" <natal@cisco.com>
References: <156410535896.17429.16464147399003551309@ietfa.amsl.com> <69983428-3A0C-4DAB-857E-75586DCE27D0@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/-SbLs_iVBBne40WQmvg_zANbzYQ>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-lisp-yang-11
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 21:14:43 -0000


> On Aug 20, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal) <natal@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>       - TTL is limited to minute units. This may be overly restrictive. Couldn't
>         there be some use (perhaps not common) e.g., perhaps when debugging, or in
>         future versions of the protocol where seconds granularity might be useful?
>         Changing these nodes later is non-backwards compatible and thus very
>         painful to do.
> 
> [AR] That's a fair comment. We used minutes in the model, however, since RFC6833bis defines the TTLs in minutes. Do you think it would be reasonable to leave the TTL in minutes and aligned with 6833bis?

If it were me I'd probably use seconds and mention in the description that the RFC granularity is minutes; however, since you don't define a range (a good thing) one backward compatible way to be able to specify sub-minute values in the future would be to augment in a seconds (or sub-seconds) node and have the minutes value be 0, so I think you're OK if you want to leave it as minutes.

Thanks,
Chris.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email