Thanks, all. I’m balloting no-objection. Jari
On 01 Nov 2016, at 03:54, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > This didn't have a chance to be updated before the cutoff, > so technically it's still "Ready with Issues", but I am > completely happy with Lada's proposed changes. > > Regards > Brian > > On 25/10/2016 20:56, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
