On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrah...@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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> > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the review, please see inline <RR>. > > On 2018-07-04, 6:33 PM, "Eric Rescorla" <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. > Well, this is a comment so you're free to ignore it, but IMO it makes it very hard to read these. -Ekr > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > Regards, > Reshad. > > >
