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

Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.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 8F8FB127010 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jabil.onmicrosoft.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 37BYyZKytu5P for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0114.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48FBB124B17 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:29:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jabil.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-jabil-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=5HpehwO7ViN+Y+sHo/3g6SglEv+KazEIkTvCdZ6fado=; b=R+S9lNpU/2c9KRFiIaKgaCkRgpVwEPwJkp9dqfyYCKQv0JlnuSUsyY7eoiGJO+FqyIgERXfRuFUJi7V0hKmEjeb9p+eCFfW3nOGoYVuYJc1CFPK3KmmH0Up4oqLYli36ouv/owDyd7dCBz3NR8+fASJxyDPJr0CdbkvAGIJM3BE=
Received: from BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.154.13) by BN3PR0201MB0865.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.160.154.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.506.18; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:29:02 +0000
Received: from BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99f9:82ca:f5f2:2f8b]) by BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99f9:82ca:f5f2:2f8b%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0506.023; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:29:02 +0000
From: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "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+oqkJqOaKkyAgAAW6YCAABg5gIAACJ8AgAAGQYCAACxmAIAAAFBwgAru0wCAAjGkgIADzW4AgAANdICAAI92gIABR0Aw
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:29:02 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <B4B94E93-48B4-4916-A0E7-3308775EF5AC@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-dg-ref: PG1ldGE+PGF0IG5tPSJib2R5LnR4dCIgcD0iYzpcdXNlcnNceGxpdVxhcHBkYXRhXHJvYW1pbmdcMDlkODQ5YjYtMzJkMy00YTQwLTg1ZWUtNmI4NGJhMjllMzViXG1zZ3NcbXNnLWEzNmQwN2Y5LTE2NDktMTFlOC05YzQ1LTE4NWUwZmUzYzQ1Y1xhbWUtdGVzdFxhMzZkMDdmYS0xNjQ5LTExZTgtOWM0NS0xODVlMGZlM2M0NWNib2R5LnR4dCIgc3o9IjY4NDM2IiB0PSIxMzE2MzYxMDIxODczODQ0NDkiIGg9InQ2cTVnangzTG5lUFZZRTlzQUdrcitVY1ZUND0iIGlkPSIiIGJsPSIwIiBibz0iMSIvPjwvbWV0YT4=
x-originating-ip: [98.191.72.170]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0201MB0865; 7:oeuFgdrKmbEOAsfO7cVcUwfXijaGcx+nr6MueDp6e7TKO5SZ4fz26CPA1qyR6d5A+NlCPVj+f8oyQWQOVRkXGEAb1hNsZ/HshmsYW0OjDg2fMQI64g9VkkBrRxlp9eStKEZ0fkuzr2P2vNUTngaWw8GzziNbtQB7BsY2MGcEn47J79jyyYmIaJ6dpmLJEOlDF5rH9X0W11XdVFgs1Brbb1cpWBNhhrbFYf8AKzOvyZxZqwFeTcUBKVWMQO66fkuR; 20:m22nJoeh0lXjk2vmoJPvzvalQfeATth7Rc2tmKlUtwwseZQeHYFCpQPPyerlLOL+Oh6LUfFj/0Lpb7BCEDfBIgFd7gf6pSbyXeP4TgyRUeDnBeE2M4NqdXcl1Gzf/uQkavYmQFOQy+xowsIUfQJInviWejkeRgKncw5gVWYj6lc=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9ba094f5-53be-4a46-ca91-08d5786e49e9
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0865;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3PR0201MB0865:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0201MB0865A12F63DF2D0591EC94AAF1CF0@BN3PR0201MB0865.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705)(50582790962513)(85827821059158)(95692535739014)(130873036417446)(194151415913766)(21534305686606);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001056)(6040501)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231101)(944501161)(3002001)(6055026)(6041288)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0865; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0865;
x-forefront-prvs: 05891FB07F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(39380400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(51444003)(377424004)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(51914003)(13464003)(7696005)(26005)(97736004)(54906003)(68736007)(6506007)(80792005)(186003)(551544002)(53546011)(76176011)(110136005)(2906002)(3660700001)(45080400002)(229853002)(4326008)(102836004)(6246003)(5660300001)(106356001)(14454004)(53946003)(3280700002)(7736002)(305945005)(99286004)(53936002)(114624004)(5250100002)(74316002)(6436002)(478600001)(105586002)(8676002)(81166006)(81156014)(316002)(16200700003)(66066001)(9686003)(2900100001)(72206003)(6116002)(86362001)(3846002)(59450400001)(93886005)(561944003)(6306002)(8936002)(966005)(2950100002)(25786009)(33656002)(55016002)(502464002)(579004)(559001)(569006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0865; H:BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: jabil.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: z4nuxmuZYiL/pZ9trqrZWktDF6bL4iljZw5cUAX2NqGLUYT5SHOSFPu1hW+wPyX7ujaw8YFgP8eK+hRSIQj8pO2fo9VnFRgHiG5COUKQd0FJ+Nq+XX2EZxgmTkPoYSgrh81lqYPwSTt6paVxTU1YMaM4NvfIGQvzkgXB9Q1PZm0=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: jabil.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9ba094f5-53be-4a46-ca91-08d5786e49e9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Feb 2018 14:29:02.0993 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bc876b21-f134-4c12-a265-8ed26b7f0f3b
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0201MB0865
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ozIZH6FklThXIMZ20XmyrzZQCxY>
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 14:29:13 -0000

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.

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>rg>; Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
> Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>om>; 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>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>om>,
>     >>         > "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Cc: "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>om>,
> "Mahesh
>     >>         > Sivakumar
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>om>,
> "guofeng@huawei.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <guofeng@huawei.com>om>,
> "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>om>,
> "liuyisong@huawei.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>om>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-
>     >>         > lucent.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>om>,
>     >>         > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>om>, "Acee Lindem (acee)"
>     >>         > <acee@cisco.com>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Hi Sandy and Xufeng,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > I understand that you want only 1 MSDP instance but I
> don’t think
>     >>         >     > that
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > justifies /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols. If we do
> that we
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > will end up with all single-instance protocols under
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols and all the multi-
> instance
>     >>         >     > ones
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > under
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-
> protocol.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > I am not sure what’s the best way to enforce single-
> instance, I can
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > check with the other YDs on this topic. One way it can be
> done is
>     >>         > as
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > follows (I’ve added the when statement in bold to
> existing BFD
>     >>         >     > model),
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > it enforces that the protocol name is ‘bfdv1’. So multiple
>     >>         > instances
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > with rt:type=bfd-types:bfdv1 could be created, but only
> one of
>     >>         > these
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > instances can have the bfd container. This is probably not
> the
>     >>         > best
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > way but the point is that IMO protocols have to go under
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-
> protocol.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Regards,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Reshad.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >      when "rt:type = 'bfd-types:bfdv1'"  {
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >       description
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >         "This augmentation is only valid for a control-plane
>     >>         >     > protocol
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >          instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1').";
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >     }
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >     description "BFD augmentation.";
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >     container bfd {
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >       when "../rt:name = 'bfdv1'"  {
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >         description
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >           "This augmentation is only valid for a control-plane
>     >>         >     > protocol
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >            instance of BFD (type 'bfdv1').";
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >       }
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >       description "BFD top level container.";
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > From: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:38 AM
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > To: "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn"
> <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Cc: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>om>,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > "anish.ietf@gmail.com" <anish.ietf@gmail.com>om>,
> "Mahesh
>     >>         > Sivakumar
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > (masivaku)" <masivaku@cisco.com>om>,
> "guofeng@huawei.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <guofeng@huawei.com>om>,
> "pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com>om>,
> "liuyisong@huawei.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <liuyisong@huawei.com>om>, "xu.benchong@zte.com.cn"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>cn>, "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-
>     >>         > lucent.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com>om>,
>     >>         > "zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com"
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Hi Sandy,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Thanks for the updates.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > In RFC8022bis, the rt:type is defined under
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-
> protocol.
>     >>         > If
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > we augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols, the
> “when”
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > statement will not be valid, because it cannot find the
> rt:type. I
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > don’t think that we need the “when” statement. The
> container
>     >>         > with
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > “presence” will serve the purpose of the identity. We can
> simply
>     >>         >     > take
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > out the “when” statement and the definition of the MSDP
> identity.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Thanks,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > - Xufeng
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
> [mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn]
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:36 AM
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Cc: rrahman@cisco.com; anish.ietf@gmail.com;
>     >>         > masivaku@cisco.com;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > guofeng@huawei.com;
> pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > liuyisong@huawei.com; xu.benchong@zte.com.cn;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-lucent.com;
> zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Subject: RE: Hi all, about the modification of MSDP YANG
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Hi Xufeng and Reshad,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > I am sorry for forgetting the point. I updated the YANG
> model.
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > If no one has comments on it I'd like to submit the new
> version. :-)
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Thanks,
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > Sandy
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > 原始邮件
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > 发件人:
>     >>         > <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com<mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > 收件人:
> <rrahman@cisco.com<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>>;
>     >>         > 张征00007940;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <anish.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:anish.ietf@gmail.com>>;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > > <masivaku@cisco.com<mailto:masivaku@cisco.com>>;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
> <guofeng@huawei.com<mailto:guofeng@huawei.com>>;
>     >>         >     >
>     >>         >     > >     > >
>     >>         >
> <pete.mcallister@metaswitch.com<mailto:pete.mcallister@metaswitch.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
> 
>