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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 21 March 2018 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 ED3AB126D05; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 hMcrH9j882Ll; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED7812D94E; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734CDDEB; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:17 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id qk2AKCzkVX1J; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E7820039; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:17 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsXPM_frcvVl; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (unknown [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D5C20035; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8561A4278DBA; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:14 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:51:14 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
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>
Message-ID: <20180321085114.7yb5vqcwlyr4aejh@elstar.local>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "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>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5A6DEA92-C05C-476C-8CE0-F314E88D1ACF@cisco.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/8c8NqySg6Csfy2XN8QtNYUX-qRM>
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 08:51:21 -0000

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/>