Yingzhen, How do you plan to indicate to the BFD engine that the session is enabled?
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > For the enable flag, I'd prefer to have it defined directly in ospf instead > of using a grouping from BFD. I'm not sure how useful this grouping is, am I > missing something? > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mahesh Jethanandani [mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 9:43 PM > To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@huawei.com> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Reshad Rahman <rrah...@cisco.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 > > 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. > > 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/iet >>>> f >>>> -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/ie >>>>> t >>>>> 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/ya >>>>>>>>>> n >>>>>>>>>> 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-0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
