Hi Brian, thank you for the review. Please see my replies inline.
> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2016-10-25 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-03 > IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03 > > Summary: Ready with (minor) issues > -------- > > Comments: > --------- > > This seems to be a fine document. FYI I am not a YANG expert. > > There is a dissent on a point of principle in the WG archive at > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html: > "Given the historical opposition to revising models once they have been cast > as RFCs > that we have seen within the IETF, then I feel that avoiding incomplete > models going > to RFC is the best course of action." > > My understanding is that YANG models are intrinsically extensible, and this is > noted in the Abstract and Introduction. So I don't find this dissent > compelling. Indeed, this data model is intended as a basis for other models, e.g. for routing protocols. Several such model are already under way. > > Minor Issues: > ------------- > > 1) > Re on-link-flag and autonomous-flag: Please consider adding a normative > reference to the approved RFC-to-be draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host, > as well as RFC 4861. That document specifies that having both these flags > set to False is a legitimate combination, against current expectations. Will add. > > 2) > Did you consider doing anything explicit for ULA prefixes, or would > this just be handled by special-next-hop/prohibit in border routers? The "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" submodule just tries to cover the parameters specified in RFC 4861. I understand that configuration specific to ULA prefixes is an add-on to this base set, and this can be implemented via augmenting the core model from other modules. > > 3) >> Appendix B. Minimum Implementation >> >> Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user- >> defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers. This appendix >> gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum >> of available functions. Such an implementation may be used for hosts >> or very simple routers. > > IPv6 hosts should definitely not send RFC4861 router advertisements. > Should that be stated in this appendix? Yes, good point, will do. Thanks, Lada -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
