Hi all, Please see attached ospf bfd module. Base ospf module also needs to be updated to remove the bfd enable leaf. ISIS model need to do the same change, ietf-isis-bfd.yang will look the same as ietf-ospf-bfd.yang.
Please let me know your commetns. Thanks, Yingzhen -----Original Message----- From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:25 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> Cc: Reshad Rahman <rrah...@cisco.com>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@huawei.com>; Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-y...@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt 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 >> -bfd- >> 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/iet >>> f-bfd >>> - >>> 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/yan >>>>>>>> g/iet >>>>>>>> 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
ietf-ospf-bfd.tree
Description: ietf-ospf-bfd.tree
ietf-ospf-bfd.yang
Description: ietf-ospf-bfd.yang
