Hi Mahesh, For the enable flag, I'd prefer to have it defined directly in ospf instead of using a grouping from BFD. I'm not sure how useful this grouping is, am I missing something?
Thanks, Yingzhen -----Original Message----- From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 9:43 PM To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt Yingzhen, Overall the model looks good to me. I notice that you decided to (re)define the enable flag in the model. Is that intentional? You are aware that there is another grouping called client-base-cfg-parms that defines the enabled flag. I am not a particular fan of this split, but I am told that some client protocols just need the enable flag without the rest of the parameters of client-cfg-parms. If the split is confusing, we can collapse the enabled flag into client-cfg-parms. Thanks. > On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Please see attached ospf bfd module. Base ospf module also needs to be > updated to remove the bfd enable leaf. ISIS model need to do the same change, > ietf-isis-bfd.yang will look the same as ietf-ospf-bfd.yang. > > Please let me know your commetns. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > Cc: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu > <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt > > 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/iet >>> f >>> -bfd- >>> 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/ie >>>> t >>>> f-bfd >>>> - >>>> 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/ya >>>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>>> g/iet >>>>>>>>> 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-0 >>>>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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] > > > > <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
