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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542B4128954; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.631
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aoC9tgIMIUSc; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80F4B124234; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,527,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="358497748"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2018 00:46:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:46:45 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:46:44 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
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: <>
References: <> <> <20180217085551.x7vn357slnmdwkzr@elstar.local> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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. 


On 2/17/18, 5:26 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> 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.
    On 2018-02-17, 1:31 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <> 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)? 
        On 2/17/18, 1:24 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> 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.
            On 2018-02-17, 3:56 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <> 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
                Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
                Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
                Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>