Hi draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp draft authors,
I have a couple of comments on the latest revision of this draft:
1) The top level "vrrp container" has the right name, but can be "config
false" since it doesn't hold any configuration today. This is noting
that RFC 7950 allows the "vrrp container" to become "config true" as a
backwards compatible change in future if required.
2) I've also noticed that this draft defined two separate versions of
the VRRP YANG module. The second version in the appendix is for
pre-NMDA implementations:
<CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
module ietf-vrrp {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vrrp";
prefix "vrrp";
And
<CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
module ietf-vrrp {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vrrp";
prefix "vrrp";
Generically, I don't think that it is a good idea to define two versions
of the same YANG module in one draft.
If a backwards compatible NMDA version of a module is required, then an
extra "-state" module should be put in the appendix instead (e.g.
[email protected]). This "-state" module could be used in
conjunction with [email protected] until NMDA implementations
are available.
Alternatively, if you must define an existing pre NMDA version of the
VRRP module then it should definitely be given a different module name,
e.g. [email protected]. But I believe that this
would be an inferior solution since, compared to a separate "-state"
module, it will make it harder for clients to migrate to the NMDA
modules in future.
Finally, having actually read at the main VRRP module, then on the
assumption that VRRP is always configured before it is used, then the
"NMDA version" may well be sufficient to use on both existing NETCONF
implementations and NMDA compatible NETCONF implementations. The only
thing that you can't see when using the NMDA version of the module on a
"pre NMDA" implementation is the applied VRRP configuration. Whether
this is important enough to not define the extra "-state" module is
unclear, but my instinct would be that it is better to just leave it out.
Thanks,
Rob
On 30/09/2017 15:12, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the IETF.
Title : A YANG Data Model for Virtual Router Redundancy
Protocol (VRRP)
Authors : Xufeng Liu
Athanasios Kyparlis
Ravi Parikh
Acee Lindem
Mingui Zhang
Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05.txt
Pages : 68
Date : 2017-09-30
Abstract:
This document describes a data model for Virtual Router Redundancy
Protocol (VRRP). Both version 2 and version 3 of VRRP are covered.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-05
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/
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
