And this is what the changes would look like.
On 2019-08-21, 4:14 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Yes, to me it makes sense to do the change suggested by Martin (add "default tx-rx-intervals;" to the choice statement). BFD YANG co-authors, please respond asap if you disagree.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2019-08-21, 4:11 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reshad,
If procedures permit it (I'm unclear on the detail), does it make sense to
pull the BFD yang module for a fix from the editor queue?
-- Jeff
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:31:27PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> I was looking at an old copy of the doc which didn't have default. So yes, mandatory doesn't make sense with the default statements.
>
> Your assumption below wrt the intention is correct. I don't know how feasible it is to add this while it's in the editor q.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2019-08-19, 3:18 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks Martin and Mahesh.
> >
> > I believe we should add a mandatory statement to the choic (speaking
> > as BFD YANG co-author,)
>
> But then it is not clear why all leafs in the cases have default
> statements.
>
> Since the 'single-interval' case is optional with a if-feature (which
> BTW is weird since it is trivial to implement), and the only other
> case has default values on both its leafs, I would have assumed that
> the intention was that if nothing is configured, the server should use
> 1000000 microseconds for the intervals. If this is the intention,
> perhaps a statement: "default tx-rx-intervals;" can be added to the
> module, even though the doc is in the RFC ed q.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> >
> > Just created https://github.com/bfd-wg
> >
> > Regards,
> > Reshad.
> >
> >
> > On 2019-08-19, 2:45 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [Adding the authors of BFD YANG module]
> >
> > Martin brings up a good point. But since the document that contains ietf-bfd-types is sitting in RFC Ed Queue, this will have to go into a bis document.
> >
> > Chairs, could you create a bfd-wg in GitHub for us to track this as an issue to be fixed as part of a bis document?
> >
> > > On Aug 19, 2019, at 4:29 AM, Martin Björklund via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reviewer: Martin Björklund
> > > Review result: Ready with Nits
> > >
> > > I have reviewed this document from a YANG model perspective only.
> > >
> > > My only comment is actually for a grouping defined in ietf-bfd-type, but used
> > > in this module. There is a choice "interval-config-type":
> > >
> > > +--rw unsolicited {bfd-unsol:unsolicited-params-global}?
> > > +--rw enable? boolean
> > > +--rw local-multiplier? multiplier
> > > +--rw (interval-config-type)?
> > > +--:(tx-rx-intervals)
> > > | +--rw desired-min-tx-interval? uint32
> > > | +--rw required-min-rx-interval? uint32
> > > +--:(single-interval) {single-minimum-interval}?
> > > +--rw min-interval? uint32
> > >
> > > This choice is not mandatory and doesn't have a default case, so the question
> > > is what happens if no nodes from the choice has been configured? I would
> > > expect the choice to have a default case (but this then would apply to
> > > ietf-bfd-types, not this document.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Mahesh Jethanandani
> > mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
<<< text/html; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-bfd-yang.txt - draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17v2.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
