Hi Alvaro, From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 3:26 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
On June 26, 2019 at 11:53:28 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: Acee: Hi! This may take a couple iterations. See inline. I only have one response. :-) ... ... 3936 leaf dead-timer { 3937 type uint32; 3938 units "seconds"; 3939 config false; 3940 description "This timer tracks the remaining time before 3941 the neighbor is declared dead."; 3942 } [major] For *-timer: Is tracking the remaining time in seconds enough? I would assume that ms would be the right unit. Why seconds? <acee> Because sub-second hellos was a bad idea – three words: B-F-D…' This question is not about sub-second Hellos…it’s about the *remaining time*. Even if Hellos are x seconds apart, the “remaining time before the neighbor is declared dead” can still be in ms, right? Why not? Note that there are other places in the model that are characterized as tracking the remaining time. I don’t feel that strongly. However, it would seem that one would use the same granularity as the configuration. No? We found that the RFC 8294 timer types aren’t good for “config true” values since the values “infinity” and “not-set” are included in the union. Hence, they lend themselves better to operational state than configurable values. Thanks, Acee Thanks!! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
