The changes are done and pushed to GitHub. Use the grouping client-cfg-parms.
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
