Hi Tom, Draft Authors,
The draft could easily be fixed. You just need to:
1. Expand on the single sentence in section 2.1 on the need for non-IP MPLS
routes. Given that the draft wasn't modeled correctly, this wasn't apparent to
most of the reviewers.
2. Add an MPLS AF only augmentation (enforced via a when statement) to each
route for the MPLS AF specific destination-prefix or destination-address.
3. Limit the current local-label augmentation to non-MPLS AFs.
4. Limit the active-route augmentation to AF MPLS and change the input to
destination-address.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/11/20, 6:10 AM, "tom petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
From: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>
Sent: 11 August 2020 10:47
Hi Tom,
I fully understood your original comment. There are other problems with
this model. See inline.
On 8/11/20, 4:59 AM, "tom petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
Tarek
Picking up on an earlier point,
________________________________________
From: Tarek Saad <ts...@juniper.net>
Sent: 10 August 2020 21:23
Hi Acee,
The existing RPC is used to query (defined AFIs=IPv4/IPv6) RIB to
return the matching active route identified by a "destination address".
The MPLS module is trying to reuse this RPC so to query the MPLS RIB to
return the matching active route identified by a "local label".
The RPC defined in RFC 8349 readily accepts MPLS AFI in it
(/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route) - unless we augment and suppress
it with a "when check".
IMO, it is reusable as-is but the text below is limiting the leaf name
that identifies an entry in RIB to "destination-address" only - in MPLS RIB the
entry leaf name that identifies an entry is "local-label".
It is not reusable as is since the augmentation RPC augmentation must have
a when statement restricting it to AF MPLS. Also, local-label is a leaf which
is applicable to all address families. It cannot be the AF MPLS
destination-prefix. This augmentation is missing.
<tp>
I am probably getting out of my depth here, On 1may20 I raised the issue
of why the 'MUST' in the description in RFC8349 was not enforced in the YANG
and 5may20 Martin explained that there is a rule in the YANG ABNF of input-stmt
that makes the obvious impossible:-( You are raising more profound issues
about the RIB that I had not perceived when I reviewed mpls-base-yang for which
I, and I hope everyone else, will be grateful.
If this mpls I-D is to proceed in the immediate future, it looks like the
action may have to be deferred for future study.
More generally, I think that the interaction of forward by address and
forward by label is challenging. When first I looked at the MPLS I-D I was
surprised at the way RFC8349 was augmented. I had not seen MPLS as an
alternative to IPv4 or IPv6 or ... in the way in which the RFC is used although
the RFC does state that it can be; rather, to me, labels are a different
animal, but I assumed that everyone knew what they were doing.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Acee
<tp>
There should be a 'when' check to enforce the 'MUST' but the rules of
YANG do not allow it in this structure. I raised this on the NETMOD list at
the time of WGLC and Martin pointed me to a rule in the ABNF which prohibits
such a check. He also said that the rule was not needed and would be a
candidate to remove when YANG is revised.
Hence I have always thought of this MUST in the documentation as a
constraint that must be enforced in the YANG
Tom Petch
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that is used for
the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules MUST augment
input
> parameters with a leaf named
'destination-address'.";
Regards,
Tarek
On 8/10/20, 3:27 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
I just looked at this in more detail and I don't think the
ietf-mpls.yang model should be augmenting the
/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The intent of the RPC is to
return the address-family specific active-route corresponding to the
destination-address. This model attempts to overload this RPC with a different
action all together - returning a route that has the local-label as an optional
attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the augmentation should be removed
from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced with a different one is up to the
co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwil...@cisco.com>
wrote:
[Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit filter]
Hi Tom,
I would be interested to hear from the original authors.
My impression is that this is a technically reasonable change,
but I don't think that an erratum can create a new revision of a YANG module.
If this erratum was processed as "Hold for document update"
then would that be sufficient to do the right thing in the MPLS YANG module?
Regards,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
> To: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;
lho...@nic.cz; Acee
> Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; yingzhen...@huawei.com;
war...@kumari.net;
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>; joe...@bogus.com;
> kent+i...@watsen.net; lber...@labn.net
> Cc: ts...@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349
(6251)
>
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of RFC
Errata System
> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
>
> <tp>
> This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated on this
list on June
> 16th.
>
> There is a degree of urgency about it. The I-D in question
is mpls-base-
> yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a Normative
dependency of bfd-
> yang which is a Normative dependency for a small mountain of
I-D which
> have been waiting a year or so (e.g. ospf-yang).
>
> I suspect that the technically perfect solution would involve
a YANG
> union, choice or some such structure but as I said in my Last
Call comment
> I can live with a label that contains such as 'address'
encompassing such
> as 'label' in the context of forwarding. I take labels to
mean what
> labels mean rather than what I might find in a work of
reference.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8349,
> "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6251__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxw8DnSr2A$
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Tarek Saad <ts...@juniper.net>
>
> Section: 7
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the active route
in a RIB.
> RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB AFI for MPLS
as per
> section 3 in RFC8349.
>
> The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must augment
input
> parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.
>
> For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf named
'local-label'
> since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.
>
> We ask to make the following change:
>
> OLD:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that is used for
the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules MUST augment
input
> parameters with a leaf named
'destination-address'.";
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> NEW:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that is used for
the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules MUST augment
input
> parameters with a suitable leaf that
identifies the
> route.";
>
>
> Notes
> -----
>
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if
necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management (NMDA
> Version)
> Publication Date : March 2018
> Author(s) : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Network Modeling
> Area : Operations and Management
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxxyc2_LZA$
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
