I’m fine with adding “(and not admin-down)” to make it more explicit. Updated descriptions will be in the next rev.
Regards, Reshad. From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:03 PM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:49 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Warren, Thanks for the review. In your example below +--ro number-of-sessions (10) +--ro number-of-sessions-up (2) +--ro number-of-sessions-down (5) +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down (3) There is a description on Page 37 of rev-16 of the draft, I can add to it as follows, is this sufficient? Thank you, I checked there, and I don't *think* that this quite covers it. The below *implies* that admin-down is not counted in 'number-of-sessions-down' (which is only 'down or init' state), but I think it could be clearer. Perhaps: leaf number-of-sessions-down { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions currently in down or init state (and not admin-down) (as defined in [RFC5880])."; } Does that work, or is it too long? W leaf number-of-sessions { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions."; } leaf number-of-sessions-up { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions currently in up state (as defined in [RFC5880])."; } leaf number-of-sessions-down { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions currently in down or init state (as defined in [RFC5880])."; } leaf number-of-sessions-admin-down { type yang:gauge32; description "Number of BFD sessions currently in admin-down state (as defined in [RFC5880])."; } I will fix the nits in the next rev. Regards, Reshad. On 2018-07-04, 1:17 PM, "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't panic, this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear, but I think it important for interoperability. In multiple places, you have: +--ro number-of-sessions? +--ro number-of-sessions-up? +--ro number-of-sessions-down? +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down? I'm a little confused by the meaning of the counters, and didn't see them clearly defined anywhere. Apologies if I missed it... Are "number-of-sessions-admin-down" included in "number-of-sessions-down"? Is 'number-of-sessions' always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' + 'number-of-sessions-down', or is it always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' + 'number-of-sessions-down' + 'number-of-sessions-admin-down', or are there other cases? E.g: I have created 10 sessions (because I have 10 interfaces). 5 of them are down because there is no peer, 3 of them I've configured to be down (admin down), and so 2 of them are up. What should be in each of: number-of-sessions? number-of-sessions-up? number-of-sessions-down? number-of-sessions-admin-down? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you. I also had a few minor nits: Nits: Section 1: "The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) Network Management Datastore Architecture [RFC8342]. " The Department of Redundancy Department called and wants some of their words back please :-) Section 2: "Since BFD is used for liveliness detection of various forwarding paths, there is no uniform key to identify a BFD session. So the BFD data model is split in multiple YANG modules where each module corresponds to one type of forwarding path." I think this would be more readable as: "... to identify a BFD session, and so the BFD..." (hey, I said it was a nit) -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
