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

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> Sun, 18 February 2018 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFBE12AF84; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:28:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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_H3=-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 5DrSqbTZjd3m; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:28:15 -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 3C817127058; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:28:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5076; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518924495; x=1520134095; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=JXvHFgHpj6lCL2mYt8xBPyAuO2agbrl11j9uYqzWuoA=; b=cxzfAZnvMobUSEpnS2jANcHJryOZUVWg41bPeTiHc+tvx9V2Krs1rpN+ 42u03bWzH8A5nNLTUL4gzm/Fj5v2oYd8N/Uo1ooxJfEKsel8lHVw2uTTs QRdngqrJIrtqBQpvd6PnxVaeTcivI2zxjJmW+SGBsA8NLYM/joe4l3dCp o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,528,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="71799301"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2018 03:28:14 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1I3SEn4018580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 18 Feb 2018 03:28:14 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:28:13 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:28:13 -0600
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Thread-Index: AQHTpkBKVunZZ+hp3EiObmH4QVr8yqOoDwcAgACjRoCAAEseAIAAVaOA///t+4CAAHrwAP//2UwA
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 03:28:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <20180217085551.x7vn357slnmdwkzr@elstar.local> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
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 03:28:17 -0000

Hi Acee,

What I meant is that BFD always augments the control palne protocols in ietf-routing model. And the BFD augmentation can be used as-is or mounted in LNE or in NI.


On 2018-02-17, 7:46 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <> wrote:

    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         <>