Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 19 February 2018 18:35 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 5464A1241F5 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:35:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 6ip2tYT8RE9h for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A723C1204DA for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=87126; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519065327; x=1520274927; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=iSWNcQw+DGZbSHWaq76A0ui41uN3wQqMZhAOahLvs94=; b=LgNhFrTqiiLbu0CIqcYFocwGC47DcHIV7CbQ1DJOZ5+WaiN3x0LPsVjD loZ3slqZjH1zUWbfQxViOrW2GLiRcD3txPyAR1//P8QTfg7VF40ExIXQX 11dVKT0cEd4qGojFbpj81JqSi2yVeC9Dxe5AQb7x7Aq0MnkG/HITpVXX1 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DeAAA7GIta/4gNJK1TCRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDHgQtZnAoCoNdiiWOBIFbJ4EXgVCGL45KFIF/AwoYC4UYAhqCQVQYAQIBAQEBAQECayiFIwEBAQMBAQEYAQgROgsMBAIBBgIOAwMBAQEBAgIUDAMDAgICHwYLFAEICAIEAQ0FG4lvAw0IEJdynXSCJ4NXg2MNgTKCEwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BD4N8giiDPykMgWuBDoJsRAEBgTYREhgHBQshAhSCSTGCFCABBJJSkS41CQKIIoQIhFMBhQqCIGeFQ4t9jk6JJAIRGQGBOwEfOYFRcBU6KgGCGAmCSxwZcQEIc3iLKCMJgQaBGQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,536,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="72387707"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Feb 2018 18:35:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1JIZPpd019806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:35:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:35:24 -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; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:35:23 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com" <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance
Thread-Index: AQHToHz+iqb8zCrKLke5wcDQ+oqkJqOapVmAgAAYOYCAAAifAIAABkGA///Yk4CAAEV9AIAK7ScAgAHdzYCABCFFAIAADXSAgAA7pIA=
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:35:23 +0000
Message-ID: <B4B94E93-48B4-4916-A0E7-3308775EF5AC@cisco.com>
References: <BN3PR0201MB0867740F23053ADF02F39AD0F1F30@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <22D8EED4-0A6C-4035-B01B-595CEEA9F2F1@cisco.com> <9AB8DC45-EFAE-462B-B291-B4432B49967F@cisco.com> <20180219.101346.2229730027340550251.mbj@tail-f.com> <874lmd47sc.fsf@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <874lmd47sc.fsf@chopps.org>
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: [10.155.40.64]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <858967DF0510684F9FF820DA700BD619@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/mlIwBFECQr29PCurCOYVRauSx7I>
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: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:35:31 -0000
On 2/19/18, 5:02 AM, "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> wrote: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes: > Hi, > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> As seems to be the modus operandi for YANG issues, we have 3 separate opinions as to how a protocol only supporting a single instance should be realized. >> >> 1. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS) >> and specify in the description text that only a single instance is >> supported. >> 2. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS) >> and use a YANG 1.1 must() restriction as discussed by Martin and >> Lada. >> 3. Augment the container one level up from the list for singleton >> protocols (suggested by Xufeng). > But I think there was also a proposal to require the single instance > to have a well-known name - but maybe this proposal is no longer on > the table. I actually liked this solution; however, instead of picking an arbitrary "well-known" value for name, I would specify the 0 length string instead. I think that reinforces the idea that this isn't actually a named instance. :) augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" + "rt:control-plane-protocol" { when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp') and rt:name = ''" { container msdp { One benefit of this solution is that it solves Xufeng's issue of what the client uses as the instance name. Thanks, Chris. > > > /martin > > >> and #3. For #3, one determent would be that the control plane protocols are in a location other than where they were originally envisioned and I don't relish pulling RFC8022BIS off the RFC queue to document. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 2/15/18, 8:39 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Xufeng, >> >> I think the intent of 8022bis was to have all protocols under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. I agree that forcing a name for a single-instance is cumbersome, but I think it is too late to change tree hierachy organization at this point. >> >> I will defer to other YDs and 8022bis authors on this. >> >> Regards, >> Reshad. >> >> On 2018-02-08, 9:48 AM, "Xufeng Liu" <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I feel that such a solution is still not clean enough to outweigh the simple augmentation to "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/". >> >> Some considerations are: >> >> - Name management: Neither the operator nor the implementation wants to deal with the artificial name, whether it is hardcoded, user-configured, or system-generated. When we implement such singleton protocol, we don't save a name anywhere. >> - The complexity of validation: The "when" statement is an unnecessary expense to the user and to the implementation, especially if we need to check all instances. >> - Data tree query: If the singleton "MSDP" is mixed with other protocol instances, it is less obvious or harder to search for. Depending on the implementation, it would be worse if the entire list needs to be iterated. >> - Tree hierarchy organization: I don't see too big a problem 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". If necessary, some of the names can be adjusted. >> >> Thanks, >> - Xufeng >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:41 AM >> > To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; >> > Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> >> > Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; Xufeng Liu >> > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> >> > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane- >> > protocol instance >> > >> > Thanks for the suggestions. I agree that hard-coding the name is a bad idea, >> > glad that a cleaner way of doing this is possible. >> > - We can move the must statement up to restrict max of 1 control-plane- >> > protocol instance of type msdp? >> > - Acee/Lada, should a note be added to section 5.3 of 8022bis regarding how >> > to enforce single instance? How much of a concern is the performance >> > impact in this specific case? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Reshad. >> > >> > On 2018-02-08, 7:02 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: >> > > > Hi Lada, >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > On 2/8/18, 4:42 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" >> > <yang-docto >> > > rs-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > 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). >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > 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)" <rrahman@cisco.com> >> > > >> > > > > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25 PM >> > > >> > > > > > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, >> > "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" >> > > >> > > > > > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> >> > > >> > > > > > Cc: "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>, "Mahesh >> > Sivakumar >> > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>, "guofeng@huawei.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com>, "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, "liuyisong@huawei.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn" >> > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- >> > lucent.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>, >> > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>, "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>, >> > > >> > > > > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>, "Mahesh >> > Sivakumar >> > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>, "guofeng@huawei.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <guofeng@huawei.com>, "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>, "liuyisong@huawei.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn" >> > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel- >> > lucent.com" >> > > >> > > > > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>, >> > "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.co >> > > m>>; >> > > >> > > > > > <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.c >> > > om>; >> > > >> > > > > > 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.co >> > > m>" >> > > >> > > > > > >> > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.co >> > > m>>, >> > > >> > > > > > "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.co >> > > m>>; >> > > >> > > > > > <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 >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > >> > > > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > yang-doctors@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
- [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single con… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Christian Hopps
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single… Ladislav Lhotka