Hi Tom,
On 3/5/19, 7:08 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yingzhen Qu" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 9:09 PM
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your review and comments. We have submitted version -10 to
address your comments, please see my detailed response below starting
with [YQ].
Um; not sure what the WG Chairs will make of that. It is -09 that has
been approved by the WG and so I would expect to see
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-00.txt
with text identical apart from name to
draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-09.txt
However, resolving that issue is above my pay grade!
So, you say repair path is optional - which I understand - but my point
was slightly different, namely when a repair path is specified, then
does it have to conform to other details in the model? As it stands, an
IPv4 path could be a backup to an IPv6, or an Ethernet interface could
be backup to ATM! YANG allows you to impose constraints, which is
probably overused in IETF modules, but I wondered if anything would be
appropriate here.
This is not protection of an interface, it is a next-hop protecting a route if
the primary goes down. Hence, it would be unwise to attempt to impose any
constraints.
One difficulty I have is the absence of references in the I-D. When you
talk of repair paths, what do you mean? RFC7490, RFC5286.... ? This is
a general comment, that there should be references IMHO for all the
functions that this I-D specifies and there are none. One to resolve
post-adoption.
From the standpoint of the RIB, we don't want to limit the backup to any one
computational technique. However, we could reference the IP FRR framework
document (RFC 5714).
Thanks,
Acee
Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> On 2/19/19, 4:26 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Two uncertainties strike me.
>
> One is terminology, which caused some discussion in the production
of
> the original YANG routing module. When I see the terminology
used, e.g.
> admin distance, I immediately think of one manufacturer so I
wonder how
> other manufacturers see it and would like to see their agreement
that
> the terminology makes sense for them (even if everyone here is of
> course contributing as an individual).
> [YQ]: We're still using "preference" consistent with RFC 8349. The
term, "admin distance", is only included parenthetically for
explanation.
>
>
> More technically, I wonder at the specification of repair routes.
One
> thought is placement, it is described as
> "Augment a route with a list of repair-paths.";
> which is not strictly true since it augments
> augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" +
"rt:routes"
> i.e. the container and not a route therein (which is the case for
the
> augmentation with a tag). I am unsure where a list of repair
routes
> belongs in the schema - it seems to me that it could be anywhere.
> [YQ]: this was done based on WG's suggestion (sorry, forgot who made
it) to make the model "slim". The list of repair paths is at "routes"
level with an "id", at each "route" level, a repair path is reference
this "id". By doing so, if a bunch of routes are using the same repair
path, so they can just reference the same id instead of repeating the
whole repair path multiple times.
> See below tree diagram for an example:
> augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes:
> +--ro repair-route* [id]
> +--ro id string <--------- "id" is
defined here.
> +--ro next-hop
> | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref
> | +--ro next-hop-address? inet:ip-address
> +--ro metric? uint32
> augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route
> /rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop:
> +--ro repair-path?
> -> /rt:routing/ribs/rib/routes/repair-route/id
<-------------------referenced here.
>
> Related to this, is there any requirement for repair routes to
exist or
> be valid i.e.is this missing a few 'must' or such like statements?
> [YQ]: repair path is optional, so no "must" statement is needed.
>
> While I am at it, the reference in the YANG module to RFC8242
should be
> RFC8342 IMHO. And the YANG module is version 1.1 so the reference
in
> the Introduction must be RFC7950; I cannot understand this I-D
using
> only RFC6020.
> [YQ]: fixed.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email protected]>
> To: "RTGWG" <[email protected]>; "Routing WG"
<[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 7:18 PM
> Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" -
> draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
>
>
> > Dear RTGWG,
> >
> > The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt
> draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
> > as the working group documents.
> >
> > The authors have addressed the comments raised.
> >
> > Please indicate support or no-support by March 3rd, 2019.
> >
> > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please
> > respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of
> > any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG
> > mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage
> > until a response has been received from each author and each
> > individual that has contributed to the document.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jeff
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> >
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
