From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[email protected]> Sent: 03 September 2020 21:50
RTGWG, An objection has been raised with respect to requesting publication of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model at this time. The main concern expressed is that changes in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model may require changes in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model. The main area of concern is the text in section 7 of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which illustrates how the current version of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model augments rpol:defined-sets, rpol:conditions, and rpol:actions with bp:bgp-defined-sets, bp:bgp-conditions, and bp:bgp-actions. I would like to suggest adding the following text to section 7 to make it clear that this text is not normative. ================= The example below provides an illustration of how another data model can augment parts of this routing policy data model. It uses specific examples from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 to show in a concrete manner how the different pieces fit together. This example is not normative with respect to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model. ================= Would this text, or something similar, help to address this concern? <tp> mmm sounds like me:-) I misread it at first as saying that the BGP model is not a Normative module as opposed to this not being a Normative Reference but have not got a better wording.# I would like something added about the prefix. I commented on BGP that the prefix were not used consistently and were not a good choice in IMHO while the YANG doctor review suggests a major restructuring of BGP which could impact on the prefix. I think that this module should spell out which BGP module it is referring to with this prefix and perhaps choose a prefix other than bp: I think it should be bgp-... such as bgp-pol with all the BGP modules have prefixe bgp-... but that is of course for the IDR WG to decide. Tom Petch Thanks, Chris On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:45 PM Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: RTGWG, This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model. Please indicate support for, or opposition to, the publication of this document as Proposed Standard, along with the reasoning behind that support or opposition. Jeff Tantsura is a co-author of the document, so he won't be involved in judging consensus. IPR: If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email stating 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 until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. This WG last call will end on September 2, 2020. Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
