Hi Acee, 1) I’ll see if others chime in on this but I am fine with having the client grouping in ietf-bfd-types.yang. 2) bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms has much more than just the multiplier/timers that the IGPs need. It also has BFD specific stuff (demand-mode, BFD auth) which IMO has no business outside of BFD. bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has only the multiplier/timers.
Regards, Reshad. On 2017-07-27, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Reshad, > >On 7/27/17, 3:19 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi Acee, >> >>When we met we agreed to have a new model for clients. Afterwards I >>decided to create a new types module, and still went ahead with the >>clients module. I am fine with having everything in the types module (no >>client module). > >Although I don’t feel that strongly - I just don’t see that putting the >client config params in wrappers provides any benefit. As for detriments, >it requires more one more local modules for validation and one more level >of indirection to see what we are really allowing to be configured. > >> >>I am not sure I fully understand your comment/question on >>bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms/bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms. The reason we >>have >>2 groupings is that some protocols may decide to have just the enable >>leaf >>and others may also want the multiplier/timer. > >The bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms grouping should use >bfd-types:bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms rather than >bfd-types:bfd-client-base-cfg-parms - no? This would be more obvious w/o >the client module. > >Thanks, >Acee > > >> >>Regards, >>Reshad. >> >> >> >>On 2017-07-27, 3:07 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Hi Reshad, >>>Why do we need a new YANG model for clients? Why can’t they just use >>>ietf-bfd-types.yang? I’d like to avoid the unnecessary levels of >>>indirection. In fact, it looks wrong to me since the grouping >>>bfd-client-ext-cfg-parms uses the grouping bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms >>>which only contains the enabled leaf. I believe you meant to use >>>bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms in the other new model. However, I don’t >>>see >>>any reason why client shouldn’t use this directly. >>>Thanks, >>>Acee >>> >>>On 7/25/17, 2:33 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Yingzhen, >>>> >>>>The grouping is available @ >>>>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-b >>>>f >>>>d >>>>- >>>>c >>>>lients.yang >>>> >>>>If you¹d like changes to the grouping, send me an email. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Reshad. >>>> >>>>On 2017-07-21, 12:22 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Reshad, >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for the summary. >>>>> >>>>>Both ospf and isis models will make corresponding changes when the new >>>>>BFD grouping is available. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>Yingzhen >>>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:19 AM >>>>>To: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt >>>>> >>>>>We (BFD and OSPF YANG authors) had a discussion yesterday. >>>>> >>>>>The agreement is that since IGP peers are auto-discovered, we want to >>>>>add >>>>>back the basic BFD config (multiplier + intervals) in IGP via a >>>>>grouping. >>>>>BFD will provide that grouping in a specific YANG module. IGP BFD YANG >>>>>will be in a separate module (separate from the main IGP module). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Reshad. >>>>> >>>>>On 2017-07-05, 12:21 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas" >>>>><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Thanks authors for the edits on the BFD yang module. This gets us a >>>>>>significant step closer to alignment with the rest of IETF for >>>>>>network >>>>>>instancing. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'd like to encourage the working group to provide feedback on this >>>>>>issue and also the changes in the module. >>>>>> >>>>>>As noted in another thread, we still have to figure out how to deal >>>>>>with accommodating interaction of the BFD yang module with client >>>>>>protocols. >>>>>>For >>>>>>example, the IGPs. In particular, how do you configure the >>>>>>properties >>>>>>of the BFD sessions that may be dynamically instantiated based on >>>>>>control protocol activity? >>>>>> >>>>>>-- Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:55:59PM -0700, [email protected] >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>>>>directories. >>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection >>>>>>>of the IETF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title : YANG Data Model for Bidirectional >>>>>>>Forwarding >>>>>>>Detection (BFD) >>>>>>> Authors : Reshad Rahman >>>>>>> Lianshu Zheng >>>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> Santosh Pallagatti >>>>>>> Greg Mirsky >>>>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt >>>>>>> Pages : 59 >>>>>>> Date : 2017-06-30 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>>> This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to >>>>>>>configure >>>>>>> and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06 >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>>>>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >>>>>>>tools.ietf.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
