subject:"RtgDir review\:"

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

2018-05-25 Thread Martin Vigoureux

good. thx.

Le 2018-05-25 à 4:56, Greg Mirsky a écrit :

Hi Martin,
apologies for the delay. Yes, this text left after active-tails document 
was spawned. Would the following be acceptable:

       Poll (P)

          Set to 1 if the local system is sending a Poll Sequence, or 0 
if not.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Martin Vigoureux 
mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>> wrote:

Greg,

looking back in the doc I found:
       Poll (P)

          Set to 1 if the local system is sending a Poll Sequence or
is a
          session of type MultipointHead soliciting the identities
of the
          tails, or 0 if not.

This looks to me as not being in line with the rest of the document,
especially the part on "MultipointHead soliciting the identities of
the tails".
Am I right in thinking that this anticipates on
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail ?

If so, please clarify this in the doc; if not, please correct me.

Thanks
-m

Le 2018-05-15 à 1:09, Greg Mirsky a écrit :

Hi Michael,
thank you for the most expedient response. Both updates are in
the new working version.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Richardson
mailto:mcr%2bi...@sandelman.ca>
>>
wrote:

     Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com> >>
     wrote:
          > The text that follows the first sentence in section
4.13.1 is the
          > replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880.
Would
     stressing that
          > make the relationship more clear, e.g.:

          txt> The following procedure replaces the entire
section 6.8.6
     of [RFC5880].

          > And the same can be applied to the first sentence in
section
     14.3.3:

          txt> The following procedure replaces the entire
section 6.8.7
     of [RFC5880].

     That seems like good text.

     --     ]               Never tell me the odds! 
    | ipv6 mesh

     networks [
     ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |
network
     architect  [
     ] m...@sandelman.ca 
>
http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

2018-05-24 Thread Greg Mirsky

Hi Martin,
apologies for the delay. Yes, this text left after active-tails document
was spawned. Would the following be acceptable:
  Poll (P)

 Set to 1 if the local system is sending a Poll Sequence, or 0 if
not.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> looking back in the doc I found:
>   Poll (P)
>
>  Set to 1 if the local system is sending a Poll Sequence or is a
>  session of type MultipointHead soliciting the identities of the
>  tails, or 0 if not.
>
> This looks to me as not being in line with the rest of the document,
> especially the part on "MultipointHead soliciting the identities of the
> tails".
> Am I right in thinking that this anticipates on
> draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail ?
>
> If so, please clarify this in the doc; if not, please correct me.
>
> Thanks
> -m
>
> Le 2018-05-15 à 1:09, Greg Mirsky a écrit :
>
>> Hi Michael,
>> thank you for the most expedient response. Both updates are in the new
>> working version.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Richardson <
>> mcr+i...@sandelman.ca > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>  > The text that follows the first sentence in section 4.13.1 is
>> the
>>  > replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. Would
>> stressing that
>>  > make the relationship more clear, e.g.:
>>
>>  txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.6
>> of [RFC5880].
>>
>>  > And the same can be applied to the first sentence in section
>> 14.3.3:
>>
>>  txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.7
>> of [RFC5880].
>>
>> That seems like good text.
>>
>> -- ]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6
>> mesh
>> networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network
>> architect  [
>> ] m...@sandelman.ca 
>> http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on rails[
>>
>>
>>

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

2018-05-18 Thread Martin Vigoureux

Greg,

looking back in the doc I found:
  Poll (P)

 Set to 1 if the local system is sending a Poll Sequence or is a
 session of type MultipointHead soliciting the identities of the
 tails, or 0 if not.

This looks to me as not being in line with the rest of the document, 
especially the part on "MultipointHead soliciting the identities of the 
tails".
Am I right in thinking that this anticipates on 
draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail ?

If so, please clarify this in the doc; if not, please correct me.

Thanks
-m

Le 2018-05-15 à 1:09, Greg Mirsky a écrit :

Hi Michael,
thank you for the most expedient response. Both updates are in the new 
working version.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Richardson 
mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote:

Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
     > The text that follows the first sentence in section 4.13.1 is the
     > replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. Would
stressing that
     > make the relationship more clear, e.g.:

     txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.6
of [RFC5880].

     > And the same can be applied to the first sentence in section
14.3.3:

     txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.7
of [RFC5880].

That seems like good text.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh

networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
architect  [
] m...@sandelman.ca 
http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

2018-05-14 Thread Greg Mirsky

Hi Michael,
thank you for the most expedient response. Both updates are in the new
working version.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Richardson 
wrote:

>
> Greg Mirsky  wrote:
> > The text that follows the first sentence in section 4.13.1 is the
> > replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. Would stressing
> that
> > make the relationship more clear, e.g.:
>
> txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.6 of
> [RFC5880].
>
> > And the same can be applied to the first sentence in section 14.3.3:
>
> txt> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.7 of
> [RFC5880].
>
> That seems like good text.
>
> --
> ]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network
> architect  [
> ] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on
> rails[
>
>

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

2018-05-14 Thread Greg Mirsky

Now with corrected BFD WG list.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Greg Mirsky  wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> thank you for your thorough review, thoughtful and detailed comments and
> suggestions.
> Please find my answers, notes in-line tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Michael Richardson  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> The
>> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
>> as
>> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
>> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing
>> ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
>> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>> discussion
>> or by updating the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16.txt
>> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
>> Review Date: 2018-05-12
>> IETF LC End Date: unknown
>> Intended Status: Standards Track
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This document is basically ready for publication, but has presentation
>> nits
>> that should be considered prior to publication.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> It seems like a well written document, with an intelligent and
>> well-throught
>> out way to extend BFD to multicast uses.
>>
> GIM>> Thank you for your kind consideration and approval of our work.
>
>>
>> I found the document a bit too abstract as it attempted to apply itself to
>> any place that BFD is used.  I would like to perhaps better
>> understand how it is used in some real multicast situations (MPLS,
>> PIM/IP-level multicast).
>>
> GIM>> BFD for Multipoint networks, also referred to as p2mp BFD, may be
> used in single-hop and multi-hop scenarios. Already there are two
> individual drafts,  draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case   and
> draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case, that demonstrate use of p2mp BFD in
> single-hop scenario. Will note that the section 4.8 of the draft does
> explain encapsulation of the multipoint BFD control packet over MPLS LSP
> using IP/UDP.
>
>>
>> I believe that my lack of familiarity with some of those technologies
>> might
>> be keeping me in the dark.
>>
>> I'm not generally happy with documents that say:
>> "The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]."
>>
>> because it's difficult to know what is going on without having the two
>> documents next to eachother.  For an implementer, I'm not sure that there
>> is any savings by doing this either, it seems to be solely for the
>> convenience of those writing it.
>>
> GIM>> The text that follows the first sentence in section 4.13.1 is the
> replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. Would stressing that
> make the relationship more clear, e.g.:
>
> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].
>
> And the same can be applied to the first sentence in section 14.3.3:
>
> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.7 of [RFC5880].
>
>
>> I would prefer to have section 4.13 actually number the steps of the
>> pseudo-code.
>> As far as I can see, all of the pseudo-code of 5880 is being replaced, so
>> this is not as much as a patch, so I don't see why not to number the
>> pseudo-code.  (Like BASIC if you want, or with numbered lists)
>>
> GIM>> I'll try but perhaps RFC Editor may help us here.
>
>>
>> I did not evaluate the pseudo-code to determine if it made logical sense,
>> it
>> seemed well written and understandable.
>>
>> Major Issues:
>>
>> No major issues found.
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>>
>> No minor issues found.
>>
>> Nits:
>>
>> "the tail declares the path to having failed."  <- s/having/have/
>>
> GIM>> Accepted to the new working version of the draft.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

2018-02-22 Thread Ravi Singh

Hi Reshad
Thanks for your response.

> We’ve done what you suggested by defining groupings for the common 
> information, so although you see repetitions in the YANG trees, there is no 
> repetition in the YANG modules.

Got it.
Thanks
Ravi

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrah...@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Ravi Singh ; 
rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org; YANG 
Doctors 
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hi Ravi,

There is indeed lots of common information and this was addressed by using 
groupings.

I am not sure I understand the suggestion to use submodules. A submodule can 
belong to only 1 module 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950-23section-2D5.1&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3-fXPV4&m=oDCkyMmWPlFCILjgX6xc441J2zq0hhL8SEs_Hh9zN6I&s=7kls7KDHke9pRPTtdQmrkY7S0DD09PoB_sE1yaqsbGM&e=>)
 so I do not see how using submodules would help (but I could be missing 
something).

We’ve done what you suggested by defining groupings for the common information, 
so although you see repetitions in the YANG trees, there is no repetition in 
the YANG modules.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: Ravi Singh mailto:ra...@juniper.net>>, 
"rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>
Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, 
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" 
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, 
"draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org>>, YANG 
Doctors mailto:yang-doct...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
Resent-From: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>>, 
mailto:vero.zh...@huawei.com>>, 
mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>>, 
mailto:santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com>>, 
mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Resent-Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM

+yang doctors

Hi Ravi,
 submodules have proved to be unwieldy and offer little advantage over 
groupings. I don’t know that we want to crave this model up into submodules. 
I’ve copied the YANG doctors to assure this is the consensus as there have been 
submodule debates on the NETMOD list in the past.

Thanks,
Acee


From: rtg-dir mailto:rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Ravi Singh mailto:ra...@juniper.net>>
Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM
To: "rtg-...@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>
Cc: Routing Directorate mailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>, 
"rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" 
mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>, 
"draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org>" 
mailto:draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org>>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6ArkE4n20mNZQF6JxrMYwJyAGBWWjzhSIC2O3-fXPV4&m=oDCkyMmWPlFCILjgX6xc441J2zq0hhL8SEs_Hh9zN6I&s=XUE05wPGYd0V4GBi_2t1qTr8FNvPFAocvFvGJ6F7qO8&e=>

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 02/09/2018
Intended Status: Proposed standard



Summary: there is more commonality of info in the new modules listed in 
sections 2.6-2.10 than there are differences. So, I think it would be 
worthwhile looking at sub-abstracting things to avoid repetitive fields 
individually listed in the modules of section 2.6-2.10.

Details:
I've reviewed the draft. Most sections look good.
My comments below pertain to 2.6 to 2.10.
Section 2 says "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

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

2018-02-12 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman)

Hi Ravi,

There is indeed lots of common information and this was addressed by using 
groupings.

I am not sure I understand the suggestion to use submodules. A submodule can 
belong to only 1 module (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.1) so I 
do not see how using submodules would help (but I could be missing something).

We’ve done what you suggested by defining groupings for the common information, 
so although you see repetitions in the YANG trees, there is no repetition in 
the YANG modules.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: Ravi Singh , "rtg-...@ietf.org" 
Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" 
, "draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org" 
, YANG Doctors 
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , 
, , 

Resent-Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM

+yang doctors

Hi Ravi,
 submodules have proved to be unwieldy and offer little advantage over 
groupings. I don’t know that we want to crave this model up into submodules. 
I’ve copied the YANG doctors to assure this is the consensus as there have been 
submodule debates on the NETMOD list in the past.

Thanks,
Acee


From: rtg-dir  on behalf of Ravi Singh 

Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM
To: "rtg-...@ietf.org" 
Cc: Routing Directorate , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" 
, "draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 02/09/2018
Intended Status: Proposed standard



Summary: there is more commonality of info in the new modules listed in 
sections 2.6-2.10 than there are differences. So, I think it would be 
worthwhile looking at sub-abstracting things to avoid repetitive fields 
individually listed in the modules of section 2.6-2.10.

Details:
I've reviewed the draft. Most sections look good.
My comments below pertain to 2.6 to 2.10.
Section 2 says "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. "
That is ok. However, this is causing too much repetition of info across the 
multiple modules.
There appears to be scope for modularization to not repeat the individual 
fields in describing them in every module that uses them.
Instead sub-modules should be considered & listed in one section which just 
augment the newly created modules of this draft wherever currently used.

Eg.
Separate sub-modules could be considered for:
A.
+--ro session-statistics
|  +--ro session-count?  uint32
|  +--ro session-up-count?   uint32
|  +--ro session-down-count? uint32
|  +--ro session-admin-down-count?   uint32

B.
   +--rw source-addr inet:ip-address
   +--rw dest-addr   inet:ip-address
   +--rw local-multiplier?   multiplier
   +--rw (interval-config-type)?
   |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
   |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?uint32
   |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
   |  +--:(single-interval)
   | +--rw min-interval?   uint32
   +--rw demand-enabled? boolean {demand-mode}?
   +--rw admin-down? boolean
   +--rw authentication! {authentication}?
   |  +--rw key-chain?kc:key-chain-ref
   |  +--rw meticulous?   Boolean

C.
  +--ro path-type?  identityref
  +--ro ip-encapsulation?   boolean
  +--ro local-discriminator?discriminator
  +--ro remote-discriminator?   discriminator
  +--ro remote-multiplier?  multiplier
  +--ro demand-capability?  boolean {demand-mode}?
  +--ro source-port?inet:port-number
  +--ro dest-port?  inet:port-number
  +--ro session-running
  |  +--ro session-index?uint32
  |  +--ro local-state?  state

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

2018-02-09 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)

+yang doctors

Hi Ravi,
 submodules have proved to be unwieldy and offer little advantage over 
groupings. I don’t know that we want to crave this model up into submodules. 
I’ve copied the YANG doctors to assure this is the consensus as there have been 
submodule debates on the NETMOD list in the past.

Thanks,
Acee


From: rtg-dir  on behalf of Ravi Singh 

Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM
To: "rtg-...@ietf.org" 
Cc: Routing Directorate , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" 
, "draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 02/09/2018
Intended Status: Proposed standard



Summary: there is more commonality of info in the new modules listed in 
sections 2.6-2.10 than there are differences. So, I think it would be 
worthwhile looking at sub-abstracting things to avoid repetitive fields 
individually listed in the modules of section 2.6-2.10.

Details:
I've reviewed the draft. Most sections look good.
My comments below pertain to 2.6 to 2.10.
Section 2 says "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. "
That is ok. However, this is causing too much repetition of info across the 
multiple modules.
There appears to be scope for modularization to not repeat the individual 
fields in describing them in every module that uses them.
Instead sub-modules should be considered & listed in one section which just 
augment the newly created modules of this draft wherever currently used.

Eg.
Separate sub-modules could be considered for:
A.
+--ro session-statistics
|  +--ro session-count?  uint32
|  +--ro session-up-count?   uint32
|  +--ro session-down-count? uint32
|  +--ro session-admin-down-count?   uint32

B.
   +--rw source-addr inet:ip-address
   +--rw dest-addr   inet:ip-address
   +--rw local-multiplier?   multiplier
   +--rw (interval-config-type)?
   |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
   |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?uint32
   |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
   |  +--:(single-interval)
   | +--rw min-interval?   uint32
   +--rw demand-enabled? boolean {demand-mode}?
   +--rw admin-down? boolean
   +--rw authentication! {authentication}?
   |  +--rw key-chain?kc:key-chain-ref
   |  +--rw meticulous?   Boolean

C.
  +--ro path-type?  identityref
  +--ro ip-encapsulation?   boolean
  +--ro local-discriminator?discriminator
  +--ro remote-discriminator?   discriminator
  +--ro remote-multiplier?  multiplier
  +--ro demand-capability?  boolean {demand-mode}?
  +--ro source-port?inet:port-number
  +--ro dest-port?  inet:port-number
  +--ro session-running
  |  +--ro session-index?uint32
  |  +--ro local-state?  state
  |  +--ro remote-state? state
  |  +--ro local-diagnostic?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
  |  +--ro remote-diagnostic?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
  |  +--ro remote-authenticated? boolean
  |  +--ro remote-authentication-type?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:auth-type {authentication}?
  |  +--ro detection-mode?   enumeration
  |  +--ro negotiated-tx-interval?   uint32
  |  +--ro negotiated-rx-interval?   uint32
  |  +--ro detection-time?   uint32
  |  +--ro echo-tx-interval-in-use?  uint32
  |  {echo-mode}?
  +--ro sesssion-statistics
 +--ro create-time?yang:date-and-time
 +--ro last-down-time?

RtgDir review:

2018-02-09 Thread Ravi Singh

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 02/09/2018
Intended Status: Proposed standard



Summary: there is more commonality of info in the new modules listed in 
sections 2.6-2.10 than there are differences. So, I think it would be 
worthwhile looking at sub-abstracting things to avoid repetitive fields 
individually listed in the modules of section 2.6-2.10.

Details:
I've reviewed the draft. Most sections look good.
My comments below pertain to 2.6 to 2.10.
Section 2 says "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. "
That is ok. However, this is causing too much repetition of info across the 
multiple modules.
There appears to be scope for modularization to not repeat the individual 
fields in describing them in every module that uses them.
Instead sub-modules should be considered & listed in one section which just 
augment the newly created modules of this draft wherever currently used.

Eg.
Separate sub-modules could be considered for:
A.
+--ro session-statistics
|  +--ro session-count?  uint32
|  +--ro session-up-count?   uint32
|  +--ro session-down-count? uint32
|  +--ro session-admin-down-count?   uint32

B.
   +--rw source-addr inet:ip-address
   +--rw dest-addr   inet:ip-address
   +--rw local-multiplier?   multiplier
   +--rw (interval-config-type)?
   |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
   |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?uint32
   |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-interval?   uint32
   |  +--:(single-interval)
   | +--rw min-interval?   uint32
   +--rw demand-enabled? boolean {demand-mode}?
   +--rw admin-down? boolean
   +--rw authentication! {authentication}?
   |  +--rw key-chain?kc:key-chain-ref
   |  +--rw meticulous?   Boolean

C.
  +--ro path-type?  identityref
  +--ro ip-encapsulation?   boolean
  +--ro local-discriminator?discriminator
  +--ro remote-discriminator?   discriminator
  +--ro remote-multiplier?  multiplier
  +--ro demand-capability?  boolean {demand-mode}?
  +--ro source-port?inet:port-number
  +--ro dest-port?  inet:port-number
  +--ro session-running
  |  +--ro session-index?uint32
  |  +--ro local-state?  state
  |  +--ro remote-state? state
  |  +--ro local-diagnostic?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
  |  +--ro remote-diagnostic?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:diagnostic
  |  +--ro remote-authenticated? boolean
  |  +--ro remote-authentication-type?
  |  |   iana-bfd-types:auth-type {authentication}?
  |  +--ro detection-mode?   enumeration
  |  +--ro negotiated-tx-interval?   uint32
  |  +--ro negotiated-rx-interval?   uint32
  |  +--ro detection-time?   uint32
  |  +--ro echo-tx-interval-in-use?  uint32
  |  {echo-mode}?
  +--ro sesssion-statistics
 +--ro create-time?yang:date-and-time
 +--ro last-down-time? yang:date-and-time
 +--ro last-up-time?   yang:date-and-time
 +--ro down-count? uint32
 +--ro admin-down-count?   uint32
 +--ro receive-packet-count?   uint64
 +--ro send-packet-count?  uint64
 +--ro receive-bad-packet? uint64
 +--ro send-failed-packet? Uint64

D.
   +--rw (interval-config-type)?
   |  +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
   |  |  +--rw desired-min-tx-interval?uint32
   |  |  +--rw required-min-rx-in

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:

RtgDir review:

9 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information