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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Mon, 08 November 2021 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 0CFB43A0FC7; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:49:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SquOZHG1Orr8; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C633A1097; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id f5so15947987pgc.12; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:49:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=wpJbgINIYjPpFIz6Yk3D5ZfiMe6xb0tSwQbf0JkCwDA=; b=fdU9bOWncPHH8dKqwMm76N7bMAH23bBOf2pn+MVturqeWs96FLiC8YwQ0gPBcJAOie VRfLXlUXPp2bTSbWNfPZPR/F9jZbc/82WZWhNrtMLLZUx0NS48PnioHVjLLEBPrLsBG5 6z0dzu1lashfD9SxoowYsFxOWXZwhoHTLeGran8rPEXiIiUz9CahobA0rPIE9XUzPzo1 H9v98bETJGNkKQlbVGPPiBf9KWEpJleJEnnmgFg7Buv3h0zzYVOWq6I8yTmVqBuTNwnp X0DFtVZx2sWqDzZnlXgHlyhL6YQoNBKYXngYtjTLUtEVgK+V+tGWIxbtoc0PYUDRli14 UDLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=wpJbgINIYjPpFIz6Yk3D5ZfiMe6xb0tSwQbf0JkCwDA=; b=WknqdSBYhand0DqWBVhKevxfGpX/EvVJ2oMySqnmEe8mbwger2czsAxnmfQhyAR3Wu t5LclL3McC3YNWIDjnTWWnjtLlXRE0+jQ3S3vcvR0c2zRNcWpOysyD7KSH97jcw44YRh iBWXQaQbaFEfGyXDIetLy3rJdP9wLWi4tPgvsyMkbRt5S/B3kQOL0wwBZGR5sN/8AGtD 9W/9/V/xC53cw0vKmQ0zD4FNZL/2ctWgmdGB7SdPGrKXmvScNBHm0BtAaoK4OFNGmjVT LkKN1eTwxwQQ6+5AuCtJY+yTcHmP3NNIrgfRhKYt0T1b9kAsg5lTdmB0wpXt/QVj54mm l8qA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531++ZjIhfDNe2vGoZCFkG0V5NjqoAVo5eXtM3ix30t1SRGk+2S7 UCvDAD0QncepujwFUDKSbcxH93FTnmQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxq1CFW2jmbQFKvKM8UZoWZe6ueqfMz3BWyXUV1v1GIemqJK6UDOe2WtwmFSLVlpGSckRs5og==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:d80c:: with SMTP id b12mr1155794pgh.331.1636397368503; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:49:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.133] (c-69-181-169-15.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [69.181.169.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13sm13012971pga.92.2021.11.08.10.49.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:49:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0B440C73-DEAD-475D-9111-8B76841F0B24@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4C40A11-A13C-44D0-92D6-AE24720C0743"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:49:26 -0800
In-Reply-To: <7C1C266F-DD19-4274-8967-9A54B68C5F62@pfrc.org>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Reshad Rehman <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>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/K8eNRYh1dwyy0hoId3KQ3erNtyQ>
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 18:49:39 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Jeffrey Haas <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.

Cheers.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email