I am fine with this proposal. It will impact other groupings also.
On 2017-07-28, 5:25 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <[email protected]> wrote: >Would it not be better to call bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms something like >bfd-grouping-client-cfg-params or more simply client-cfg-params. We know >it is a grouping and we know it is a bfd grouping. Why repeat? > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Reshad, >> >> Ok - I see now. I was looking at the wrong xxxx-base-cfg-parms >>groupings. >> Fewer similar grouping and modules will be better ;^) >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 7/27/17, 9:03 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> Hi Acee, >>> >>> What I see @ >>> >>>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-bf >>>d- >>> t >>> ypes.yang: >>> 1) bfd-client-base-cfg-parms has leaf enabled only. BTW this grouping >>>is >>> defined twice, this will be fixed when I get rid of >>>ietf-bfd-clients.yang >>> 2) bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has multiplier/timers. >>> >>> Let me get rid of the client module and have everything in the types >>> module. >>> >>> I am not sure why you’re not seeing something different. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Reshad. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017-07-27, 3:40 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Reshad, >>>> >>>> On 7/27/17, 3:35 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>> >>>>> bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms has only the multiplier/timers. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, the addition of multiplier/timers to >>>>bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms >>>> isn’t pushed to GitHub yet. This version >>>> >>>>https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-b >>>>fd >>>> - >>>> t >>>> ypes.yang only has the enabled leaf. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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/i >>>>>>>>>et >>>>>>>>> f >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >Mahesh Jethanandani >[email protected] > > >
