Inline <RR2>. From: Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> Date: Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 8:46 AM To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrah...@cisco.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-y...@ietf.org>, "bfd-cha...@ietf.org" <bfd-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: (with COMMENT)
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com<mailto:rrah...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, Thanks for the review, please see inline <RR>. On 2018-07-04, 6:33 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <e...@rtfm.com<mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374 COMMENTS S 2.1.4. > Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets. > > 2.1.4. MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels > > For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel since > the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the MPLS-TE "parameters are" <RR> Change made, will be in the next rev. S 2.8. > > 2.8. BFD over LAG hierarchy > > A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in control-plane-protocol. > The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG session > is under this "lag" node. There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common? <RR> There is replication in that the different modules have similar information as you pointed out. But this is done via groupings, so the information such as number of sessions, number of sessions up etc is defined once and used in multiple locations. Yes, but can't you incorporate the definitions by references so that the diagrams are easier to read? <RR2> The pyang tool does this for real references (leafref) but not in the grouping case (which is reuse and not reference). Even though there is replication in the tree diagrams, I believe there is benefit in seeing the complete tree for each module. Regards, Reshad. -Ekr Regards, Reshad.
