Subject: [pim] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:45:45 +0800 (CST)

Hi Ben, Roman, Barry, Rob, Alvaro, Reshad,

Thank you very much for your comments and modification suggestions.

And many thanks to everyone who give us suggestions.

We updated the draft to 16 version.

Please review it. Hope this verson can be well.

Best regards,

Sandy

原始邮件

发件人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
收件人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
抄送人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
日 期 ：2020年03月09日 11:26
主 题 ：[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Protocols for IP Multicast WG of the IETF.

        Title           : A YANG Data Model for Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)
        Authors         : Xufeng Liu
                          Zheng Zhang
                          Anish Peter
                          Mahesh Sivakumar
                          Feng Guo
                          Pete McAllister
    Filename        : draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt
    Pages           : 34
    Date            : 2020-03-08

Abstract:
   This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration and
   management of Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Protocol.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16

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/

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:53:41 +0000

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for making these markups.

I wasn’t sure that your Actions example in A.3 was complete, it doesn’t look to be structurally correct, e.g. it doesn’t seem to identify the action that is being invoked.  It would also be useful to have a sentence before the action to describe what it is doing.

As a minor nit on 3.2, I would change reword the last paragraph:

OLD:

   The actions can be used to clear the connection of one specific MSDP
   peer, or clear the connections of all the MSDP peers, or clear some
   or all the SA caches.

PROPOSED:

   YANG actions are defined to clear the connection of one specific MSDP

   peer, clear the connections of all MSDP peers, or clear some

   or all the SA caches.

Regards,
Rob

From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: 09 March 2020 03:46
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Fw:[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

Best regards,

Sandy

原始邮件
发件人：[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
收件人：[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>;
抄送人：[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>;
日 期 ：2020年03月09日 11:26
主 题 ：[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:33:35 -0400

Hi, and thanks for the changes.

You responded to my comment about BCP 14 not by removing the BCP 14
references, but by changing one instance of "optional" to "OPTIONAL".
I think that's the wrong approach: that particular one is not made any
better by making it a BCP 14 key word.  There really is no point in
citing BCP 14 here, as far as I can tell, and I really do suggest that
you go back to "optional" and remove the BCP 14 boilerplate and
references instead.  I'm happy to chat about that if it helps.

That said, this is a non-blocking comment, so you can carry on as you
think best.

Barry

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:14:01 -0400

Hi Bob,
I'd like to ask a question in-line below.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:54 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I wasn’t sure that your Actions example in A.3 was complete, it doesn’t
> look to be structurally correct, e.g. it doesn’t seem to identify the
> action that is being invoked.
>

Is there any complete JSON encoded action example? Based on RFC8040, the
given JSON data seems to be complete. The object that the action is applied
is identified by the resource url (Sec 3.6. of RFC8040):

    POST {+restconf}/data/<data-resource-identifier>/<action>

Page 35 gives an example:

      { "example-actions:input" : {
          "delay" : 600
        }
      }

Based on this example, A.3 seems correct.

It would also be useful to have a sentence before the action to describe
> what it is doing.

This could be the solution.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

> *From:* [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* 09 March 2020 03:46
> *To:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Reshad Rahman
> (rrahman) <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Fw:[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt
>
>
>
> *发件人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
>
> *收件人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
>
> *抄送人：[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
>
> *日* *期* *：*2020年03月09日 11:26
>
> *主* *题* *：**[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt*
>
>
>

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:32:34 +0000

Hi Xufeng,

A one or two sentence description of what is being done, along with an example POST request, and the body of the post request would probably make the example more complete.  Is that feasible?

Thanks,
Rob

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Sent: 23 March 2020 14:14
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] Fw: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

Hi Bob,

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:54 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[email-masked]..org<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Sandy,

I wasn’t sure that your Actions example in A.3 was complete, it doesn’t look to be structurally correct, e.g. it doesn’t seem to identify the action that is being invoked.

Is there any complete JSON encoded action example? Based on RFC8040, the given JSON data seems to be complete. The object that the action is applied is identified by the resource url (Sec 3.6. of RFC8040):

          "delay" : 600

        }

      }

It would also be useful to have a sentence before the action to describe what it is doing.

OLD:

PROPOSED:

   or all the SA caches.

Regards,
Rob

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: 09 March 2020 03:46
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw:[pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt

Best regards,

Sandy

原始邮件

Abstract:

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<http://tools.ietf.org>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp..ietf.org/internet-drafts/<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:06:31 -0700

Hi Sandy,

I see that the YANG module has been updated to use must
"derived-from-or-self(., 'key-chain:md5')" for the algorithm associated
with the password to attempt to indicate that TCP-MD5 is the only currently
defined mechanism, but I don't think this fully addresses my point.

(First off, using key-chain:md5 as an indicator to use keyed MD5 for
TCP-MD5 is rather an abuse of the identifier -- md5 is a hash algorithm,
and just saying "MD5" does not indicate a particular keyed hash usage or
that TCP-MD5 should be used, though I can probably grudgingly accept that
this has become convention.)

Shouldn't the description refer to TCP-MD5, not just "the md5 algorithm",
ideally with a section reference to where using TCP-MD5 for MSDP is
discussed?

I note that using this "must derived-from-or-self" basically requires the
YANG module to be revised if some future security service is defined for
MSDP, when otherwise an abstract crypto-algorithm identifier might be
usable without modifying the module.  This perhaps has pros and cons, but
I don't have a sense for what discussion occurred about this choice.

Also, the security considerations puts the "key" node in the *readable*
configuration section, but it seems to be both readable and writeable, so I
think the discussion needs to be expanded and relocated.

Finally, could you clarify what changes were made to address my point about
the reference time for elements in the "state-attributes" container?  That
grouping has moved to a different location in the module so the diff is not
very helpful.

Thanks,

Ben