Sigh, I mean “why don’t you add ‘enabled’…" On 7/31/17, 2:56 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
>Hi Mahesh, > >On 7/31/17, 12:42 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >>Yingzhen, >> >>Overall the model looks good to me. >> >>I notice that you decided to (re)define the enable flag in the model. Is >>that intentional? >> >>You are aware that there is another grouping called client-base-cfg-parms >>that defines the enabled flag. I am not a particular fan of this split, >>but I am told that some client protocols just need the enable flag >>without the rest of the parameters of client-cfg-parms. If the split is >>confusing, we can collapse the enabled flag into client-cfg-parms. > >I don’t add ‘enabled’ to the client-cfg-parms? Then a client would only >need a single grouping. > >Thanks, >Acee > >> >>Thanks. >> >>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@huawei.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> 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><ietf-ospf-bfd.yang> >> >>Mahesh Jethanandani >>mjethanand...@gmail.com >> >
