IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sun, 18 February 2018 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 542B4128954; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 aoC9tgIMIUSc; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80F4B124234; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4316; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518914807; x=1520124407; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Ydnc3ZcMzED4PqDYiP8BHGoYIp7NqrOh0GCCV7nMTHw=; b=O5jCh0RXVVmD7UZBMdezfoKI6L3wuex1Cx4LQZk5AYcXAUwupoKhE4Wk xWDzHeRn6AgcglIGrc8h1D8wKfIUEFe+3rhO64urr3WvvMzVeDxvBowk4 Lv/1Ht1nxRWoDoMbizXZI/l3eyv0NAGmxtooUqkFbEZtXqDib378b1xBA w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DrAgBazIha/5hdJa1aAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDT2ZwKAqDXJgoggKBF5ZJghYKH4UcAhqCLFYWAQIBAQEBAQECayiFJAYjEUUOAgIBCBAKAiYCAgIZFxUQAgQBDQWKIqx4gieIc4ITAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAUFgQqDfIIog2iDBYUjFwomglAxghQgBaQ1CQKWCJRHl3ICERkBgTsBJgExgVFwFToqAYIYhHZ4jHKBGQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,527,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="358497748"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2018 00:46:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1I0kjss023101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:46:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:46:45 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:46:44 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, 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>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHTpkBOq31onlZLjkmwuYfv3dAXvKOnqnCAgAD3GYCAAJ7xgP//rf4AgACVoAD//9NMAA==
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:46:44 +0000
Message-ID: <6D6DEFD5-7EEA-4AF8-A56B-504D8BE5DB23@cisco.com>
References: <151868731494.7525.9572645824096052010@ietfa.amsl.com> <43251E1C-078C-49E6-9817-1743DC54AFED@cisco.com> <20180217085551.x7vn357slnmdwkzr@elstar.local> <727B078D-95F8-4D61-AD3E-6A9B884A1D4D@cisco.com> <9D82EBC0-CFC4-494D-83FD-4053542F237C@cisco.com> <9CF7CA53-427A-4DA3-982B-BCDA6A72FFB6@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9CF7CA53-427A-4DA3-982B-BCDA6A72FFB6@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8F73BB6BCF115C46ADA1472EC00D0FCA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/UldKaZtziITFraaISY8GI_85amM>
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: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:46:49 -0000

Hi Reshad, 
Are you saying that BFD would never augment the list of control place protocols in ietf-routing and always be at the root of the tree (whether it be the device, LNE, or NI)? I guess it doesn't have to be in the list since it will never install routes in the routing table. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 2/17/18, 5:26 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:

    Ietf-bfd augments the ietf-routing model, that's not conditional. How the ietf-bfd model is used may vary:
    1) It may be used "directly" in a device (i.e no schema mount)
    2) It may be schema mounted for use in an LNE
    3) It may be schema mounted for use in a VRF
    
    I thought this was the case for all routing protocols.
    
    Regards,
    Reshad.
    
    On 2018-02-17, 1:31 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
    
        I thought about that after I replied. I guess you are saying that it is conceivable for a network device to support ietf-bfd but not support routing (ietf-routing)? 
        
        Thanks,
        Acee 
        
        On 2/17/18, 1:24 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:
        
            Right, schema-mount can be used in some cases (logical device or in a VRF) but doesn’t have to be used in other cases (e.g. network device which doesn't support VRFs). We will clarify the text, at a certain time we incorrectly thought that schema mount had to be used in all cases.
            
            Regards,
            Reshad.
            
            On 2018-02-17, 3:56 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
            
                On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:11:28PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
                
                >     * Design of the Data Model
                >     
                >       - Do I always have to use schema mount to use these YANG models? If
                >         so, one might consider I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount a normative
                >         reference. Are you not augmenting the routing model?
                > 
                > This Is definitely not the case. This model will augment RFC8022BIS. The question on how to do is being discussion on the YANG doctors list. 
                >
                
                This is what I thought but the text is kind of misleading:
                
                   BFD can operate in the following contexts:
                
                   [...]
                
                   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
                   locations.
                
                /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/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email