Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-23.txt> (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I have looked at -26 and it looks good apart from BGP.

BGP gets a mention in passing but does not get the same treatment as the protocols of the LSR WG. I am unclear whether or not this I-D is intended to include networks using BGP or not with e.g. signalling of MSD and would value a clarification in the I-D.

I wonder about the final D in
Maximum SID Depth (MSD)D
in the YANG; I suspect that it is spurious.

Tom Petch

On 24/11/2020 09:34, tom petch wrote:
On 23/11/2020 17:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Tom,

See a couple responses inline enclosed in <acee> and </acee>. We are
addressing the rest of your comments.

On 11/18/20, 7:39 AM, "tom petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

     IANA Considerations does not register the module names used in
the modules

<acee>
This is in the IANA considerations...

<tp>
Indeed; I do not see a registration of ietf-segment-routing-mpls!

    This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
    registry [RFC6020].

       name: ietf-segment-routing-common
       namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-common
       prefix: sr-cmn
       reference: RFC XXXX

       name: ietf-segment-routing
       namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing
       prefix: sr
       reference: RFC XXXX

       name: ietf-segment-routing
       namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-mpls
       prefix: sr-mpls
       reference: RFC XXXX
</acee>

     Examples are IPv4 only, IPv6 would be good

     BGP is included when it comes to defining a router-id but is ignored
     everywhere else, such as signalling MSD, protocol extensions etc

     reference "RFC XXXX" would be improved by including the title in all
     cases not just some

     the scheme http: appears in many places.  It would be lovely if this
     really was the scheme but I fear that it is not
<acee>
This is directly from the RFC 8407 template in Appendix B. What would
you suggest?

<tp>
Many I-D do now specify https: since that is now the only option
supported by the IETF; I have seen this called for by an AD.


</acee>

     module srcmn
       the upper bound must be larger
       the value must be greater
     consistency is good - I think greater is better

     8.3
     operation states
     usually operational

     two imports lack references

     typedef router-id
     this is a well known type from RFC8394; it seems likely to
confuse to
     redefine it with a related but different meaning

     leaf enabled
     enables protocol extensions
     which protocols?

     leaf protected
     it is used to protect
     how does it do that:-)

     enum dual
     ... In this case will be advertised with backup flag set
     What is the backup flag?  It does not feature in RFC8660.  Needs an
     explanation and reference

     container link-msd
       list link-msds
         leaf msd
     The usual YANG convention is for a list to be plural and the leaf
     singular.  You have the plural list but not the leaf.
<acee>
So you are asking for a change from "leaf msd" to "leaf link-msd"?

<tp>
Yes I would especially given node-msd.  I wish that YANG Guidelines said
more about container names.  I think that having the same identifier for
container, for list, for leaf (which I have seen in another I-D)
will lead to mistakes so having a convention for list and leaf will
reduce mistakes but having another for container would be even better.
That said, I have yet to think of a good convention
In passing, must link-msd be >= node-msd?

</acee>


  And who needs the
     container?  This is mpls not a common module that might be
augmented so
     what does the container give apart from complexity?

     list policy
       leaf string
     YANG string caters for very large items of very complex character
sets.
       Is that desirable?
<acee>
IETF models normally do not limit identifiers. An individual
implementation could do this with a deviation.

<tp>
I know - I did see an AD challenge that, I think in IESG review, not
long ago.  SMI was better at this!

Tom Petch

</acee>

Thanks,
Acee

     leaf used
     will used plus free equal size?

     Indicates if the binding is /instal/installed/

     notification-segment-routing-global-srgb-collision
     a mix of conflict and collision;  consistency is good and I
prefer the
     latter which is the name of the notification

     containing /s/a/ mapping

     ... sid collision
     again consistency good, prefer collision to conflicting

     s.9
     I would have thought the srgb worthy of mention under sensitive
nodes

     Tom Petch


     On 16/11/2020 19:32, The IESG wrote:
     >
     > The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing
in Networking

--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux