Lada, I don't feel strongly about it; it's between you and the IESG. FYI, that draft is in the editing stage, so will certainly be an RFC before yours.
Regards Brian On 03/11/2016 04:59, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Brian, > > after looking into draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10, it seems to me > that > > - this document doesn't change the set of router configuration > parameters specified in RFC 4861, > > - our data model neither prevents nor discourages the settings > recommended in draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10. > > If this is correct, I would say that a normative reference to > draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10 is not needed. RFC 4861 is a > normative reference in routing-cfg only because it defines the > configuration parameters, which doesn't mean that routing-cfg endorses > RFC 4861 as a whole. > > Thanks, Lada > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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
