Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
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 0240912D958; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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
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 oycrkSQpbPLN; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE1F1201F2; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 02:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521623999; x=1522833599; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=VCmlQTSCbFkmVL3YeUxbZVrvOHAxQnUqG+8a7GefsQg=; b=If5oYfpGaboWu0VgGoA2LqJwWJb+Se3NxPOk/1qbt1leNG0NUjgGNLcu VzS+k/fH+zTxeGtko7OiOaQGTOQzNQT4a+XP5prqSK5HusjDt3+oqqpJR pzL00lBlHbeSMeXiAlodDj4WIqqtiLMaxJjnVJB9FREShSbloLjQ+0Pdt Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AmAQBCI7Ja/5JdJa1aAxkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGDT2ZyKAqDU4oPjXqCA4EWhxWMboIOCyOEbgIagzchNBgBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQJrKIUlAQEBAwEjEUUOAgIBCA4CAQECAQIBAgImAgICGQYRFQIGCAIED?= =?us-ascii?q?gWEdgMNCA+qI4IlhxcNgSyCDgWBBYQlghOBVIFQJYJzglhEAQECAQEXgU4QChk?= =?us-ascii?q?NgjowggQgA4dQhGqLUTAJAoYNhgiDI4FOQIM9h2uHQ4FxOoYiAhETAYElARw4g?= =?us-ascii?q?VJwFRlLAYIYCQqCEBiOFnABAQGNNSyBA4EWAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,339,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="87168591"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2018 09:19:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2L9JwbD030931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:19:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:19:57 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:19:57 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHTvk/5L5WgcxXMZkKtr+wA4JoiDKPauroAgAAIBQA=
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:19:57 +0000
Message-ID: <C25377FA-F9A6-428D-95ED-5454C5FAC623@cisco.com>
References: <151868731494.7525.9572645824096052010@ietfa.amsl.com> <6A04AE1F-F538-40CD-BFB4-3452B50C7F9D@cisco.com> <9A6B372F-2FD1-409A-BF3B-AFF48D1E74B4@cisco.com> <F5EE16C2-B4E3-4B0A-835F-EB729900323E@cisco.com> <20180313145844.c5zz27p6tscl7me6@elstar.local> <5A6DEA92-C05C-476C-8CE0-F314E88D1ACF@cisco.com> <20180321085114.7yb5vqcwlyr4aejh@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20180321085114.7yb5vqcwlyr4aejh@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.242.80]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2B94757CF322AD4E995463FF882EAAD3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/0sudfE-yIPArh8s9zPOPH221Uao>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:20:02 -0000

Thank you Juergen, will do. I had updated references for the new RFC8343 and 8349 but missed these docs.

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-03-21, 8:51 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

    Reshad,
    
    this looks good. You proabably also want to update references to point
    to the RFCs that just recently appeared:
    
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] with [RFC8340]
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] with [RFC8342]
    - replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] with [RFC8344]
    
    /js
    
    On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > Hi Juergen,
    > 
    > Thanks again for the excellent review. We've just published rev12 to address your latest comments.
    > 
    > Please see inline.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Reshad.
    > 
    > On 2018-03-13, 10:58 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
    > 
    >     On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:30PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    >     > 
    >     > We have made the changes in revs 10 and 11 to address your comments . The exception is module ietf-bfd-types which did not get renamed per reason below.
    >     >
    >     
    >     Hi,
    >     
    >     here is my re-review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang. I think the document has
    >     significantly improved since the -09 version, the authors have done an
    >     excellent job to improve the document quality.
    >     
    >     I have mostly a few minor mostly editorial issues left, except the
    >     first one, which concerns the schema mount use case.
    >     
    >     - Thanks for clarifying that the modules can be used on standalone
    >       devices. The new text is helpful.
    >     
    >       For the LNE and NI use cases, does it make sense to detail the mount
    >       points that are used? My understanding is that schema mount requires
    >       that mount points are identified with a "mount-point" extension
    >       statement, i.e., you can't mount at arbitrary places in the
    >       hierarchy but only at places that have been designated as mount
    >       points.
    >     
    >       That all said, since your YANG modules are basically augmenting
    >       other YANG modules that may be mounted, you do not seem to need a
    >       separate schema mount. If my understanding is correct, then here is
    >       a starting point for making this clearer:
    >     
    >       OLD
    >     
    >         When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model is used
    >         "as-is".  When the BFD model is to be used in a Logical Network
    >         Element or in a Network Instance, the approach taken is to do a
    >         schema-mount (see Schema Mount [I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount]) of the
    >         BFD model in the appropriate location.  For example, if an
    >         implementation supports BFD IP multihop in network instances, the
    >         implementation would do schema-mount of the BFD IP multihop model in
    >         a mount-point which resides in a network instance.
    >     
    >       NEW
    >     
    >         When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model are used
    >         "as-is".  When the BFD YANG model is used in a Logical Network
    >         Element or in a Network Instance, then the BFD YANG model augments
    >         the mounted routing model for the Logical Network Element or the
    >         Network Instance.
    >     
    >       Note that with this change, you also do not need a reference to
    >       schema mount.
    > <RR> Done.
    >       
    >     - Since the different use cases (device, LNE, NI) are discussed right
    >       at the beginning of Section 2, it seems the following statements in
    >       Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 are not really needed:
    >     
    >                                        The "bfd" node under control-plane-
    >        protocol can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in
    >        an LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                                 The "ip-sh" node can be used
    >        in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network
    >        instance.
    >     
    >                                                                 The "ip-mh"
    >        node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
    >        LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                   The "lag" node can be used in a network
    >        device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network instance.
    >     
    >                                                                  The "mpls"
    >        node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
    >        LNE or in a network instance.
    > <RR> Done
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention RFC
    >       8177 since you are importing it.
    > <RR> Done
    > 
    >     - It might be useful to give more explicit instructions to IANA. I
    >       assume you want IANA to update the iana-bfd-types module whenever
    >       changes are made to the "BFD Diagnostic Codes" registry and "BFD
    >       Authentication Types" registries. Giving clear instructions what
    >       IANA is expected to do and when is better than a soft statement such
    >       as "intended to reflect". But IANA is going to ask questions about
    >       this anyway during their review I assume.
    > <RR> Updated 5.1
    >     
    >     - The feature definitions in ietf-bfd-types have text of the form "as
    >       defined in RFC 5880" and perhaps it makes sense to add reference
    >       statements to these feature definitions. There are also a number of
    >       identities that say "as per RFC 588X" where perhaps reference
    >       statements should be added.
    > <RR> Added reference sections to the feature definitions and identities.
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also	mention	RFC
    >       6991 since you are importing it. And you are also importing from
    >       RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> 2.13 already mentions RFC 6991 but it was missing from 2.15 and 2.17 (it's been added). 2.13 already has mention of 8022bis (routing model). 8022bis is now rfc8349.
    > 
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.16 should also mention
    >       that you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.17 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC 6991 and from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> Added mention of RFC6991.
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.18 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349  (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - The text at the beginning of Section 2.19 should also mention that
    >       you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
    > <RR> We now mention rfc8349   (8022bis).
    >     
    >     - I have not validated the examples - I hope the authors have done so.
    >       They look more plausible than in the previous version I reviewed.
    > <RR> Yes we have validated them using yanglint.
    >     
    >     /js
    >     
    >     -- 
    >     Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    >     Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    >     Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
    >     
    > 
    
    > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:05:36 -0700
    > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
    > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>om>, Reshad Rahman
    >  <rrahman@cisco.com>om>, Juniper Networks <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>om>,
    >  Gregory Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>om>, Greg Mirsky
    >  <gregimirsky@gmail.com>om>, Santosh Pallagatti
    >  <santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com>om>, Lianshu Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com>
    > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > Message-ID: <152155113615.9798.6292162729217739657.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
    > 
    > 
    > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > has been successfully submitted by Reshad Rahman and posted to the
    > IETF repository.
    > 
    > Name:		draft-ietf-bfd-yang
    > Revision:	12
    > Title:		YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
    > Document date:	2018-03-20
    > Group:		bfd
    > Pages:		74
    > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
    > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
    > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
    > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang
    > Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
    > 
    > Abstract:
    >    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
    >    and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
    > 
    >    The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
    >    Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
    > 
    >                                                                                   
    > 
    > 
    > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
    > 
    > The IETF Secretariat
    > 
    > 
    
    
    -- 
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>