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

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Lada,
> 
> > 
> 
> > On 2/8/18, 4:42 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" <yang-docto
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> >     On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 09:20 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> 
> >     > Hi,
> 
> >     > 
> 
> >     > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]> 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).
> 
> > 
> 
> > This looks like an elegant solution.
> 
> 
> "elegant" as in "less obvious" ;)  It has the same time complexity as
> the count() solution.

It should be faster on the average - it has to scan only preceding siblings of
the MSDP protocol instance whereas count() always has to check *all* protocol
instances.

It is true though that in XSLT this technique can be made considerably more
efficient by using indexed keys.

Lada

> 
> 
> However, since the key for the control-plane-protocol  list is "type
> name", won't it only work if the previous sibling has a  "name" that
> is precedes the one being added?
> 
> For each list entry that has this container, the expression is
> evaluated.  It will scan all preceding entries and ensure that there
> are none with this type.  So the order of the entries doesn't matter;
> if there are two with the same type, one of them has to be before the
> other.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Thanks,
> 
> > Acee
> 
> > 
> 
> >     
> 
> >     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)" <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25 PM
> 
> >     > > To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Mahesh Sivakumar
> 
> >     > > (masivaku)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > 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 <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:38 AM
> 
> >     > > To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Mahesh Sivakumar
> 
> >     > > (masivaku)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 
> >     > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:36 AM
> 
> >     > > To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 
> >     > > 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： <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > 收件人： <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;张征00007940;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> m>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;徐本崇10065053;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.
> com>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > 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:[e-mail]]
> 
> >     > > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 12:08 PM
> 
> >     > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Xufeng
> Liu
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Mahesh Sivakumar
> 
> >     > > (masivaku) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> >;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.c
> om>;
> 
> >     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> >     > > 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: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> >     > > Date: Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:37 AM
> 
> >     > > To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Mahesh
> Sivakumar
> 
> >     > > (masivaku)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> m>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> m>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.
> com>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.
> com>>,
> 
> >     > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> >     > > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> >     > > 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： <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
> m>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;徐本崇10065053;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.
> com>>;
> 
> >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > 抄送人： <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 
> >     > > 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
> 
> >     > [e-mail]
> 
> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> 
> >     -- 
> 
> >     Ladislav Lhotka
> 
> >     Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> 
> >     PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> >     
> 
> >     _______________________________________________
> 
> >     yang-doctors mailing list
> 
> >     [e-mail]
> 
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> 
> >     
> 
> > 
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67