Hi Ben, Thanks for the excellent review - see one inline. On 10/8/19, 6:13 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
Hi Stephane, Thanks for pulling in the fixes; just a few notes inline (and trimming)... On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:33:49AM +0200, slitkows.i...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > Thanks for your comment. > Please find some inline answers. > I'm doing the changes as part of the -41. > > > Stephane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: mercredi 2 octobre 2019 03:17 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-...@ietf.org; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>; aretana.i...@gmail.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; yingzhen.i...@gmail.com; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-40: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > [...] > > > In the "protection-available" container, is there some sort of constraint that two of the alternate-metrics add up to the third? > [SLI] It is not really a constraint from a YANG point of view, these are operational counters. Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "constraint", since that's a YANG verb. I was just asking if the description should reiterate to the reader that in normal circumstances the two will add up to the third (and "no" is a fine answer). [...] > container delay-metric { > leaf metric { > type std-metric; > description "IS-IS delay metric for IPv4 prefix"; > } > leaf supported { > type boolean; > > Should the "metric" leaf be conditional on "supported" being true? > (Same for the other flavors of metric, as well as when they appear later on in the "neighbor" grouping.) > > > [SLI] This is not a configuration leaf, so I don't think that there is a need for enforcement at YANG level. Oh, I had missed that it was config false; sorry about that. [...] > > container unidirectional-link-delay-variation { > description > "Container for the average delay variation > from the local neighbor to the remote one."; > leaf value { > type uint32; > units usec; > description > "Delay variation value expressed in microseconds."; > > Is this a standard deviation (variance), mean absolute error, ...? > [SLI] We just mimic what is defined in RFC8570. As the reference is defined in the model. People should refer to it for more details. > Moreover this is a pure operational state. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8570#section-4.3 still leaves me a little unclear about what exactly is being reported (it sounds like it's just an average link delay so the word "variation" confuses me), but I agree that we should not say any more in this document. > container unidirectional-link-loss { > [...] > leaf value { > type uint32; > units percent; > description > "Link packet loss expressed as a percentage > of the total traffic sent over a configurable interval."; > > This document is all about specifying configuration. How do I configure the interval in question? > [SLI] This is an operational state. The leaf value is operational state, yes, but it reports a valid computed "over a configurable interval". How do I configure that interval? I don't disagree that there is more configuration and state associated with these traffic metrics. However, these are not really under the purview of this model since IS-IS (and OSPF for that matter) are only serving as a mechanism to advertise these traffic metrics. Thanks, Acee Thanks! -Ben _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr