But do those groupings impact IGP models? I can take a stab at making the changes before the weekend.
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > I am fine with this proposal. It will impact other groupings also. > > > > On 2017-07-28, 5:25 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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) <a...@cisco.com> 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)" <rrah...@cisco.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Acee, >>>> >>>> What I see @ >>>> >>>> https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/ietf-bf >>>> d- >>>> 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)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Reshad, >>>>> >>>>> On 7/27/17, 3:35 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> >>>>> 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/ietf-b >>>>> fd >>>>> - >>>>> t >>>>> ypes.yang only has the enabled leaf. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Reshad. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-07-27, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Reshad, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/27/17, 3:19 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> >>>>>>> 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)" <a...@cisco.com> >>>>>>>> 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)" <rrah...@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Yingzhen, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The grouping is available @ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/ietf-bfd-yang/blob/master/src/yang/i >>>>>>>>>> et >>>>>>>>>> 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" <yingzhen...@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>> 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:rrah...@cisco.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:19 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-y...@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>> <rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org> 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, >>>>>>>>>>>> internet-dra...@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >> mjethanand...@gmail.com >> >> >> > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
