Thank you Juergen, will do. I had updated references for the new RFC8343 and
8349 but missed these docs.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2018-03-21, 8:51 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
Reshad,
this looks good. You proabably also want to update references to point
to the RFCs that just recently appeared:
- replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] with [RFC8340]
- replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] with [RFC8342]
- replace [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] with [RFC8344]
/js
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Thanks again for the excellent review. We've just published rev12 to
address your latest comments.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2018-03-13, 10:58 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:30PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
wrote:
> >
> > We have made the changes in revs 10 and 11 to address your comments
. The exception is module ietf-bfd-types which did not get renamed per reason
below.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> here is my re-review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang. I think the document has
> significantly improved since the -09 version, the authors have done an
> excellent job to improve the document quality.
>
> I have mostly a few minor mostly editorial issues left, except the
> first one, which concerns the schema mount use case.
>
> - Thanks for clarifying that the modules can be used on standalone
> devices. The new text is helpful.
>
> For the LNE and NI use cases, does it make sense to detail the mount
> points that are used? My understanding is that schema mount requires
> that mount points are identified with a "mount-point" extension
> statement, i.e., you can't mount at arbitrary places in the
> hierarchy but only at places that have been designated as mount
> points.
>
> That all said, since your YANG modules are basically augmenting
> other YANG modules that may be mounted, you do not seem to need a
> separate schema mount. If my understanding is correct, then here is
> a starting point for making this clearer:
>
> OLD
>
> When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model is used
> "as-is". When the BFD model is to be used in a Logical Network
> Element or in a Network Instance, the approach taken is to do a
> schema-mount (see Schema Mount [I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount]) of
the
> BFD model in the appropriate location. For example, if an
> implementation supports BFD IP multihop in network instances, the
> implementation would do schema-mount of the BFD IP multihop model
in
> a mount-point which resides in a network instance.
>
> NEW
>
> When used at the network device level, the BFD YANG model are used
> "as-is". When the BFD YANG model is used in a Logical Network
> Element or in a Network Instance, then the BFD YANG model augments
> the mounted routing model for the Logical Network Element or the
> Network Instance.
>
> Note that with this change, you also do not need a reference to
> schema mount.
> <RR> Done.
>
> - Since the different use cases (device, LNE, NI) are discussed right
> at the beginning of Section 2, it seems the following statements in
> Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 are not really needed:
>
> The "bfd" node under control-plane-
> protocol can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in
> an LNE or in a network instance.
>
> The "ip-sh" node can be
used
> in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a
network
> instance.
>
> The
"ip-mh"
> node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
> LNE or in a network instance.
>
> The "lag" node can be used in a network
> device (top-level), or mounted in an LNE or in a network instance.
>
> The
"mpls"
> node can be used in a network device (top-level), or mounted in an
> LNE or in a network instance.
> <RR> Done
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention RFC
> 8177 since you are importing it.
> <RR> Done
>
> - It might be useful to give more explicit instructions to IANA. I
> assume you want IANA to update the iana-bfd-types module whenever
> changes are made to the "BFD Diagnostic Codes" registry and "BFD
> Authentication Types" registries. Giving clear instructions what
> IANA is expected to do and when is better than a soft statement such
> as "intended to reflect". But IANA is going to ask questions about
> this anyway during their review I assume.
> <RR> Updated 5.1
>
> - The feature definitions in ietf-bfd-types have text of the form "as
> defined in RFC 5880" and perhaps it makes sense to add reference
> statements to these feature definitions. There are also a number of
> identities that say "as per RFC 588X" where perhaps reference
> statements should be added.
> <RR> Added reference sections to the feature definitions and identities.
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.13 should also mention
RFC
> 6991 since you are importing it. And you are also importing from
> RFC XXXX (the routing model).
> <RR> 2.13 already mentions RFC 6991 but it was missing from 2.15 and 2.17
(it's been added). 2.13 already has mention of 8022bis (routing model). 8022bis
is now rfc8349.
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.16 should also mention
> that you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
> <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis).
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.17 should also mention that
> you import from RFC 6991 and from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
> <RR> Added mention of RFC6991.
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.18 should also mention that
> you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
> <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis).
>
> - The text at the beginning of Section 2.19 should also mention that
> you import from RFC XXXX (the routing model).
> <RR> We now mention rfc8349 (8022bis).
>
> - I have not validated the examples - I hope the authors have done so.
> They look more plausible than in the previous version I reviewed.
> <RR> Yes we have validated them using yanglint.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:05:36 -0700
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, Reshad Rahman
> <rrah...@cisco.com>, Juniper Networks <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>,
> Gregory Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, Greg Mirsky
> <gregimir...@gmail.com>, Santosh Pallagatti
> <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>, Lianshu Zheng <vero.zh...@huawei.com>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
> Message-ID:
<152155113615.9798.6292162729217739657.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Reshad Rahman and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-ietf-bfd-yang
> Revision: 12
> Title: YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)
> Document date: 2018-03-20
> Group: bfd
> Pages: 74
> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/
> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang
> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12
>
> Abstract:
> This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
> and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
>
> The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
> Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
