Ok. Will do. > On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sigh, I mean “why don’t you add ‘enabled’…" > > On 7/31/17, 2:56 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> I don’t add ‘enabled’ to the client-cfg-parms? Then a client would only >> need a single grouping. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> >>> 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/ietf >>>>>> -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/iet >>>>>>> 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/yan >>>>>>>>>>>> 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-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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <ietf-ospf-bfd.tree><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang> >>> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>> [email protected] >>> >> >
Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
