Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 20 February 2018 14:44 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 2B31C1274D2 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.009 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, 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 BL4zxJ-KRsm7 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 88310124B17 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (37-48-39-170.tmcz.cz [37.48.39.170]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 948A7605C2 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:43:57 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1519137837; bh=R3zqCoEHY30o0rBrOaC2rHqlconfKiFggGR0lRBtwNs=; h=From:To:Date; b=S2xymMLIde5y6hYZ22EJq6mzdBHF3x6qLvcQ3CluL1pAxlmxdqF31aYy/KsLFUn84 mujTumblazFTCiagjnYCQZrJWjZrxvAbMuIlw9BsXETM1YddYGldinea8sVnLX5Z5f l/jE0axd5g7+7OhNCpnt6xjSJyFP51zmeY3Rut4w=
Message-ID: <1519137837.1496.5.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:43:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR0201MB0867C99BB3B3AB12346A664BF1CF0@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.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> <B4B94E93-48B4-4916-A0E7-3308775EF5AC@cisco.com> <BN3PR0201MB0867C99BB3B3AB12346A664BF1CF0@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.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/odK9gI3i0T67g7Ej7upVQKMXDBo>
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:44:05 -0000
On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 14:29 +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote: > Using "" as the name is better, but I am not sure that it is good enough. When > we use ConfD to translate the model to a command line, if the option > "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is not used, we will have: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol type msdp name ''" > > If the option "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is used, we will have: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol msdp ''" > > I am pretty sure that we would get a bug report on this, asking what is the > purpose to have: name ''", and requesting a suppression on the term, but we do > not have a good way to achieve. I agree with Chris, the empty string is preferable to inventing a magical name. The ietf-routing module permits the "name" key to be empty, so implementations should not choke on it. Lada > > As a comparison, the option #3 will give: > > edit routing control-plane-protocols msdp > > This is the only acceptable solution so far. When a model is not usable by the > end-user, other considerations (such as augmentation convenience) will not > matter. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:35 PM > > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > > Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; yang- > > doctors@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane- > > protocol instance > > > > > > > > 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@ci > > sco.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@gmai > > l.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.co > > m.cn" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alc > > atel- > > >> > 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@cisc > > o.com>, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.co > > m>, > > "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.co > > m.cn" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alc > > atel- > > >> > 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.c > > n; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 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@gma > > il.com>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.c > > om>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > <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@jab > > il.com>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmai > > l.com>; > > Mahesh > > >> > Sivakumar > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku) > > >> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.co > > m>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com > > >> > > >; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawe > > i.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@jab > > il.com>>, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gma > > il.com>" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gma > > il.com>>, > > "Mahesh > > >> > > Sivakumar > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > (masivaku)" > > >> > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.c > > om>" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > <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@gma > > il.com>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.c > > om>>; > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > <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-do > > ctors > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > > >> > > > 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-doct > > ors > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > >> > 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 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] 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