IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Dealing with BFD RFC 9127 client-cfg-parms for PIM, OSPF, ISIS and other BFD clients on some platforms

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 08 November 2021 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.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 2B7653A0B91; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 0jtxW3RCHs-d; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC433A0B6E; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:12:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74ADE1E28D; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:12:34 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0246A2DE-E4FB-4AD6-9777-8F4A69FD2A6D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0B440C73-DEAD-475D-9111-8B76841F0B24@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:12:33 -0500
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <478689A9-35DA-43D5-A4B3-28C702571D44@pfrc.org>
References: <316113928.668710.1636140378658@mail.yahoo.com> <E5128CE2-3EF9-4723-85C6-D5BE3E1E826A@gmail.com> <D018DDBB-08B3-4671-8EBF-5DAAC4D7528E@cisco.com> <BD68BAE3-7CA0-466B-A16A-E94FBAFD0710@gmail.com> <761418F7-F382-45EE-BD96-27317587C8EA@cisco.com> <7C1C266F-DD19-4274-8967-9A54B68C5F62@pfrc.org> <0B440C73-DEAD-475D-9111-8B76841F0B24@gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/3hq82KNrC3UBX_fk-IqAHACOE8E>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Dealing with BFD RFC 9127 client-cfg-parms for PIM, OSPF, ISIS and other BFD clients on some platforms
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 19:12:41 -0000

Mahesh,

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 1:49 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org <mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 1:56 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>>
>>> 
>>>> With Jeff’s diff, you’d still need two features. The base BFD feature which is in the protocol model and the bfd:client-cfg-parameters in the diff.
>>>  
>>> [mj] Acee, I was merely trying to point out to Reshad that we may not need a separate grouping with just the ‘enabled’ flag called ‘client-cfg-no-parms” or ‘client-cfg-enabled’ as the ‘enabled’ flag is needed by both modes of operation. I am fine with Jeff’s diffs.
>>>  
>>> But since you bring it up, how about moving the base BFD feature definition from the protocol drafts into the BFD types definition file, so there is one single way to enable the feature, rather than each protocol defining their own feature definition?
>>>  
>>> Sure.
>> 
>> The original diff I had sent out vs. the RFC was lost when the yang doctors were added.
>> 
>> Here's the diff again.  I think aside from adding appendix test and a little bit of word smithing, it's about all we need:
>> 
>> <rfc9127-bis-from-.diff.html>
> 
> All three protocol drafts (BGP, ISIS and OSPF, I did not check PIM) define their own feature statements for the base and for the client-cfg-parms in their own models. All I am suggesting is those feature definitions be moved into ietf-bfd-types YANG module as part of this update. But if the desire is to keep the change to the min, I am ok with it too.

My diff had it in that module.

Here's the full .xml for you to peruse.



-- Jeff

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email