Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 08 February 2018 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 C52AC1250B8 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:42:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 AWW1hbgVBrpQ for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5BEA1204DA for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:1f99:257b:62cc:c0d5]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A10D6095C; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:42:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1518082931; bh=5k/g5sYOw65uvThQ0RnsNw/AlRr50ZI4B/tdo/WDxcw=; h=From:To:Date; b=GkAdUQ2tBjH9X2O+FV3HRoVmFf+Y1z5qeiMrL9o/ka3jsOB93HRXxRBsk8+uhALBt Eb3mgbt+FB7ZKMW0WWXAQQjfChI/q6Ol4hnTv3cIX1gDWQ6meiMTqzL0vxsLpG+T2R BNGXMeAFob616UiAJgGJJ08JpYYNTc9QXwtS4QYg=
Message-ID: <1518082931.12498.9.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, rrahman@cisco.com
Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org, zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn, Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:42:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20180208.092011.1084955794834494213.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <ED0403DF-840E-447B-A76D-7CDFF5E25C4B@cisco.com> <20180208.092011.1084955794834494213.mbj@tail-f.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/XyFZKmZmGDa4LzdopTNZtbU8dnA>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:42:17 -0000

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 09:20 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:
> > Hi YDs,
> > 
> > MSDP YANG authors want to enforce single-instance of MSDP
> > control-plane protocol. The when “rt:type = ‘msdp’“ allows multiple
> > control-pane-protocol instances as long as they have different
> > rt:name. The only workaround I thought of is to have a when statement
> > on the name in the top level container. This would still multiple
> > control-plane-protocol instance of type msdp but restricts the name to
> > a fixed name (msdp-protocol in this case) for the top level msdp
> > container to exist. Any suggestions on how to do this better?
> 
> Hard-coding a name like this is IMO a bad idea.
> 
> Better would be to simply state in text that there MUST only be one
> instance of this type.
> 
> But you can also add a must statement that enforces this:
> 
>    augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
>          + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
>       when 'derived-from-or-self(rt:type, "msdp:msdp"'  {
>      container msdp {
>        must 'count(/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/'
>           + '      rt:control-plane-protocol['
>           + '        derived-from-or-sel(../rt:type, "msdp:msdp")]) <= 1'";
> 
> 
> In general, you should be careful with the usage of "count", since it
> will loop through *all* instances in the list every time.  If the list
> is big, this can have a performance impact.

Instead of count(), it is possible to use the so-called Muenchian method:

    container msdp {
      must "not(../preceding-sibling::rt:control-plane-protocol["
         + "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp')])";
      ..
    }

It basically states that the control-plane-protocol containing the "msdp"
container must not be preceded with a control-plane-protocol entry of the
msdp:msdp type (or derived).

Lada

> 
> Also note that I use derived-from-or-self instead of equality for the
> identity.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Reshad.
> > 
> >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
> >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
> >      when "rt:type = ‘msdp’"  {
> >       description
> >         "….”;
> >     }
> >     description "….";
> > 
> >     container msdp {
> >       when "../rt:name = ‘msdp-protocol’"  {
> >         description
> >           "….";
> >       }
> >       description "MSDP top level container.";
> > 
> > 
> > From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
> > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25 PM
> > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>om>, "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn"
> > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
> > Cc: "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "Mahesh Sivakumar
> > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>om>, "guofeng@huawei.com"
> > <guofeng@huawei.com>om>, "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com"
> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>om>, "liuyisong@huawei.com"
> > <liuyisong@huawei.com>om>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn"
> > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com"
> > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>om>, "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com"
> > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>om>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > Hi Sandy and Xufeng,
> > 
> > I understand that you want only 1 MSDP instance but I don’t think that
> > justifies /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols. If we do that we
> > will end up with all single-instance protocols under
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols and all the multi-instance ones
> > under
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol.
> > 
> > I am not sure what’s the best way to enforce single-instance, I can
> > check with the other YDs on this topic. One way it can be done is as
> > follows (I’ve added the when statement in bold to existing BFD model),
> > it enforces that the protocol name is ‘bfdv1’. So multiple instances
> > with rt:type=bfd-types:bfdv1 could be created, but only one of these
> > instances can have the bfd container. This is probably not the best
> > way but the point is that IMO protocols have to go under
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Reshad.
> > 
> >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
> >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
> >      when "rt:type = 'bfd-types:bfdv1'"  {
> >       description
> >         "This augmentation is only valid for a control-plane protocol
> >          instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1').";
> >     }
> >     description "BFD augmentation.";
> > 
> >     container bfd {
> >       when "../rt:name = 'bfdv1'"  {
> >         description
> >           "This augmentation is only valid for a control-plane protocol
> >            instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1').";
> >       }
> >       description "BFD top level container.";
> > 
> > From: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:38 AM
> > To: "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
> > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>om>,
> > "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "Mahesh Sivakumar
> > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>om>, "guofeng@huawei.com"
> > <guofeng@huawei.com>om>, "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com"
> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>om>, "liuyisong@huawei.com"
> > <liuyisong@huawei.com>om>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn"
> > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com"
> > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>om>, "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com"
> > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > Hi Sandy,
> > 
> > Thanks for the updates.
> > 
> > In RFC8022bis, the rt:type is defined under
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. If
> > we augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols, the “when”
> > statement will not be valid, because it cannot find the rt:type. I
> > don’t think that we need the “when” statement. The container with
> > “presence” will serve the purpose of the identity. We can simply take
> > out the “when” statement and the definition of the MSDP identity.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > - Xufeng
> > 
> > From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn]
> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:36 AM
> > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> > Cc: rrahman@cisco.com; anish.ietf@gmail.com; masivaku@cisco.com;
> > guofeng@huawei.com; pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com;
> > liuyisong@huawei.com; xu.benchong@zte.com.cn;
> > tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com; zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
> > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Xufeng and Reshad,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am sorry for forgetting the point. I updated the YANG model.
> > 
> > If no one has comments on it I'd like to submit the new version. :-)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Sandy
> > 原始邮件
> > 发件人: <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com<mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>;
> > 收件人: <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>;张征00007940;
> > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>>;
> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>;
> > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>>;
> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>>;
> > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>>;徐本崇10065053;
> > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>>;
> > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>>;
> > 日 期 :2018年02月03日 01:21
> > 主 题 :RE: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > Hi Sandy and Reshad,
> > 
> > The reason that we used to augment
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols, instead of
> > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol, is
> > that we do not allow multiple instances of MSDP.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > - Xufeng
> > 
> > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 12:08 PM
> > To: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>; Xufeng Liu
> > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com<mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>;
> > anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>; Mahesh Sivakumar
> > (masivaku) <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>;
> > guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>;
> > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>;
> > liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>;
> > xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto:xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>;
> > tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>;
> > zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > Hi Sandy,
> > 
> > I don’t know what warning you are getting now but from a quick look at
> > the revision you sent I see couple of issues.
> > 
> >      identity msdp {
> >        base "rt:routing-protocol";  <== should be rt:control-plane-protocol
> >        description "MSDP";
> >      }
> > <snip>
> >      /*
> >       * Data nodes
> >       */
> >      augment
> >      "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol" {
> >         when "rt:type = 'MSDP'" { <== should be "rt:type = 'msdp:msdp'"
> > 
> > 
> > HTH,
> > Reshad.
> > 
> > From: "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>"
> > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>>
> > Date: Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:37 AM
> > To: "xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>"
> > <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>>,
> > "anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>"
> > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>>, "Mahesh Sivakumar
> > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>,
> > "guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>"
> > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>>,
> > "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>"
> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>>,
> > "liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>"
> > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>>,
> > "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto:xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>"
> > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn<mailto:xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>>,
> > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>"
> > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>>,
> > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>"
> > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>>
> > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
> > <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>
> > Subject: FW: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I deleted some groupings and make the model more clear.
> > 
> > And I updated the decription of (peer-as, up-time, expire).  Please
> > review it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A warning is still existing about rt:type:
> > 
> > 5, - augment of control-plane-protocols is incorrect. There should be
> > an identity msdp with
> > 
> > base "rt:routing-protocol" and then augment
> > 
> > "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol"
> > with a when
> > 
> > statement. Take a look at OSPF YANG for an example.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added the identity and modify the augmentation, but it seems
> > like there is no MSDP register in rt:type.
> > 
> > How can we register it?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Sandy
> > 原始邮件
> > 发件人:张征00007940
> > 收件人: <xufeng_liu@jabil.com<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>>;
> > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>>;
> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>;
> > <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>>;
> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>>;
> > <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>>;徐本崇10065053;
> > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>>;
> > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com<mailto:zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>>;
> > 抄送人: <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>;
> > 日 期 :2018年01月29日  17:04
> > 主 题 :Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > YANG doctor Reshad had finished the early review about MSDP YANG.
> > 
> > I finished the preliminary modification version, please review it.
> > 
> > I think some advices from Reshad should be discussed:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1, - Not sure why peer-as is needed. Don't see it in RFC3618.
> > 
> > 2, - leaf up-time, what's meant by "up time" in the description? Is it
> > time it's
> > 
> > been created?
> > 
> > 3, - description for leaf expire seems wrong.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: These items (peer-as, up-time, expire) doesn't existed in
> > RFC3618, are these unnecessary? Please write down your
> > 
> > description if you insist on it. If nobody insist on it, should we
> > delete them?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 4, - Groupings are used for data which is used only once. Is this done
> > on purpose or
> > 
> > was the intention to use those groupings more than once?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: These eight groupings are used only once, should we change
> > them to container?
> > 
> > authentication-container;
> > 
> > global-config-attributes;
> > 
> > peer-config-attributes;
> > 
> > peer-state-attributes;
> > 
> > sa-cache-state-attributes;
> > 
> > statistics-container
> > 
> > statistics-error
> > 
> > statistics-queue
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 5, - augment of control-plane-protocols is incorrect. There should be
> > an identity msdp with
> > 
> > base "rt:routing-protocol" and then augment
> > 
> > "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol"
> > with a when
> > 
> > statement. Take a look at OSPF YANG for an example.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added the identity and modify the augmentation, but it seems
> > like there is no MSDP register in rt:type.
> > 
> > How can we register it?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Most of the suggestion is adopted. The modification detail pls see
> > below:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Too many features (17)! Every piece of config has an if-feature
> > - statement.
> > 
> > Some of the configs (timers?) should be part of most/basic
> > implementations, for
> > 
> > other config (e.g. authentication) I can see why a feature would be
> > used.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Modified the three timers (connect-retry, hold, keepalive) to
> > fixed format.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -“import ietf-yang-types” should have a reference to RFC6991 (see
> > -section 4.7 of
> > 
> > rfc6087bis-15)
> > 
> > - “import ietf-inet-types” should have a reference to RFC6991
> > 
> > - “import ietf-routing” should have a reference to RFC8022
> > 
> > - “import ietf-interfaces” should have a reference to RFC7223
> > 
> > - "import ietf-ip" should have a reference to RFC7277
> > 
> > - "import ietf-key-chain" should have a reference to RFC8177
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added all the references above.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - organization s/"...PIM( Protocols for IP Multicast ) Working
> > 
> > Group"/"...PIM (Protocols for IP Multicast) Working Group"?
> > 
> > - Remove WG Chairs from contact information as per Appendix C of
> > - rfc6087bis-15
> > 
> > - No copyright in the module description, see Appendix of 6087bis-15 for
> > - a module description
> > 
> > example
> > 
> > - Module description must contain reference to RFC, see Appendix C of
> > 
> > rfc6087bis-15
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Removed WG chairs and add copyright from Appendix of
> > rfc6087bis. Added reference to RFC3618.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - grouping authentication-container. key-chain and password both
> > 
> > use if-feature peer-key-chain.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Removed the if-feature peer-key-chain from password.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - grouping connect-source. The name is not very
> > 
> > descriptive. Should this be something along the lines of
> > tcp-connection-source?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Changed the name "connect-source" to "tcp-connection-source".
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - grouping global-state-attributes has nothing
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Deleted the grouping.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Some of the descriptions are
> > 
> > pretty terse. e.g. for rpf-peer it says "RPF peer.". In a case like
> > this
> > 
> > consider adding more descriptive text or a reference to the proper
> > section in
> > 
> > RFC3618
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added more description.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - peer-as (Autonomous System Number) is defined as type string, should
> > 
> > be of type as-number in ietf-inet-types?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Modified to inet types.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - keepalive-interval depends on holdtime-interval.
> > 
> > There should be "if-feature peer-timer-holdtime" under leaf
> > keepalive-interval
> > 
> > or change the must statement to (assuming we keep the 2 features):
> > 
> >   must "(not ../holdtime-interval) or (. > 1 and . <
> >   ../holdtime-interval)".
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Modified the features to fixed format.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - leaf up-time: s/sa cache/SA cache/
> > 
> > - leaf peer-learned-from, change description from "The address of peer
> > - that we learned
> > 
> > this SA from ." to "The address of the peer that we learned this SA
> > from."
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Modified.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - RPC leaf group, I thought we had a type for IP multicast address? If
> > - not, it should be done?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Yes. Added the rt-type reference to RFC8294.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - s/msdp/MSDP/
> > 
> > - In rpc msdp-clear-peer, s/Clears the session to the peer./Clears
> > 
> > the TCP connection to the peer./
> > 
> > - In rpc msdp-clear-sa-cache, why have the enum '*' for
> > - source-addr. Can't the same technique as for peer-address be
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > used?
> > 
> > - msdp prefix not needed in rpc names
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Done.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - MSDP peers are configured in a mesh-group, did the authors consider
> > - adding state per mesh-group, e.g. all the
> > 
> > peers in a particular mesh-group?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: IMO it is unnecessary because the states of peers is not
> > unified in a mesh-group.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > General:
> > 
> > - Per Appendix B of rfc6087bis-15: "that all YANG modules containing
> > 
> > imported items are cited as normative reference". So RFCs 6991, 7223,
> > 
> > 7277, 8022 and 8177 should be included in the normative reference
> > 
> > section.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Section 3 "the irrelevant information", add a reference/explanation
> > - for what
> > 
> > the irrelevant information is. s/the irrelevant information/irrelevant
> > 
> > information/?
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Changed the description.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Section 5 should give a brief description of what the RPCs do.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added some description.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Section 6 any plans for notifications? If not, just say so.
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Done.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Need Security
> > 
> > Considerations, see sections 3.7 and 6 of rfc6087bis-15
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added security consideration section.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Need IANA Considerations, see section 3.8 of rfc6087bis-15
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added IANA considerations.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Need license in YANG module,
> > 
> > see appendix B of rfc6087bis-15
> > 
> > [Sandy]: Added the YANG module description.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Sandy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> yang-doctors@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67