Hi Tom, Thank you for your review, really appreciate it. We've published version -07 to address your comments, please see my detailed answers below inline.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:31 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > Sent: 25 March 2021 23:05 > To: tom petch > > Hi Tom, > > Thank you for the review and comments, really appreciate. Sorry for the > delay of response. > > We’ve addressed your comments in the latest version, but forgot to reply > to this email. We’d like to get this draft ready for WG LC, so please let > us know if you have more comments. > > <tp> > Returning after a break, I see different things! > > RIB is a contentious term which is why it gets defined in RFC8349 and you > rightly reference it in 2.1 but for me this makes Introduction para. 2 > wrong, confusing. I think you should remove that paragraph entirely or if > you want to mention RIB then reference RFC8349. > > [Yingzhen]: removed the paragraph, and changed to a reference to RFC 8349. > Likewise route and path are contentious and need using carefully; see below > > RIB needs a preceding article which you have added in some places but not > all. I think that it mostly should be 'the RIB' > > > 3.1 RIB tags > um no, route tags > [Yingzhen]: I changed the section title to just "Tags and Preference", so it's more consistent with other section titles. 4 > augment with a long path can be hard to decipher, Here and in the YANG > module a comment line before it makes it much easier e.g. > > /*augment static IPv4 unicast next hop list*/ > Other WG do this and I find it helpful. Yes the YANG description says > much the same thing but that comes after the augment which is too late. > > active route > I think needs a definition > > [Yingzhen]: added description > total-route-memory > lacks units Gbyte? > > [Yingzhen]: thank you for catching this. fixed. > grouping attributes > applicable to all paths > routes I think as that is what the descriptions say > > [Yingzhen]: fixed. > Tom Petch > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > > On Jun 29, 2020, at 9:08 AM, t petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that this I-D needs a few tweaks. > > > > 'RIB' 'a RIB '' the RIB' all appear and I like consistency; since boxes > > can have multiple RIBs, I suspect 'a RIB' is best. > > > > 'route' v 'path' - RFC8349 consciously decided that path did not mean > > much and so the term does not appear; here 'path' seems to used without > > a clear differentation from 'route' > > > > s.3.2 'Ipv4' > > > > s3.3 'operational state' > > should this be an NMDA datastore? > > > > s.5 > > 'import' statements need 'reference' clauses, all of them > > > > Datastore Architecture (NDMA) as described in RFC 8242. > > perhaps 8342 > > > > leaf total-active-routes { > > what is an active route? what criterion can be applied to pick them out > > of a RIB? > > > > "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate ... > > /associate/associated/ > > > > Not sure but > > OLD > > "The application-specific tag is an additional tag that > > can be used applications that require semantics and/or > > policy different from that of the tag. For example, > > the tag is usually automatically advertised in OSPF > > AS-External Link State Advertisements (LSAs) while this > > application-specific tag is not advertised implicitly."; > > NEW > > "The application tag is an additional tag that > > can be used by applications that require semantics and/or > > policy different from that of the tag. For example, > > the tag is usually advertised in OSPF > > AS-External Link State Advertisements (LSAs) while this > > application tag is not advertised"; > > 'implicitly' does not make sense to me and the juxtaposition of 'tag' > > and 'application tag' may confuse and using 'tag' in so many other > > places may confuse more; time for a typedef? (tag also appears already > > in RFC8349 but not, sadly, in RFC8294) > > > > MULTI seems to have lost an I > > > > OSPF. ECMP could do with references > > > > > > s.7 > > " name: ietf-acl namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib- > > extension prefix: ietf-rib-ext reference: RFC XXXX " > > > > oh dear > > > > Appendix B should use documentation addresses not 10. 192.1. > > > > The IESG have been known to reject examples that do not include some > > IPv6 > > > > Tom Petch > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Cc: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:12 PM > >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt > >> > >> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >> directories. > >>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the > >> IETF. > >>> > >>> Title : RIB YANG Data Model > >>> Authors : Acee Lindem > >>> Yingzhen Qu > >>> Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt > >>> Pages : 22 > >>> Date : 2020-06-25 > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> The Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their > >>> corresponding administrative data and operational state. > >>> > >>> RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model > >>> augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each > >> route > >>> as well as additional attributes. > >>> > >>> > >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >>> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=T3%2BMwjOJoWg4etTems7m%2FDZS83txUza7BUnnMKp1GWc%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: > >>> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=DSeJQizkNOW4EtedOp5rlgpLX%2FfNu1FMmCTRdP2nDj0%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-0&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=B7bKkS%2By8nI8wUtdVbVxnow1DExp7t23fLisKZuzbjs%3D&reserved=0 > >> 4 > >>> > >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >>> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=YH0y0nObOvIqm2Fq3F3Nylu0E6yN6awmOXJk4FARTAs%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > >> submission > >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >>> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >>> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.ietf.org%2Finternet-drafts%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=fFX2a60GDIdTaGDqL1ajT7th6um5EdGtTjUqZoQiJPk%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> I-D-Announce mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi-d-announce&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=PQj%2BvpGuhu52qgVaEUrTB99mPoC4kJ6tatl7xL4OiP0%3D&reserved=0 > >>> Internet-Draft directories: > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fshadow.html&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=uP51%2BFhmIvplhQ9LO8cEhMm5o1uAmHPvmQDEoKty9wk%3D&reserved=0 > >>> or > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.ietf.org%2Fietf%2F1shadow-sites.txt&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=k56QAmN7ER%2BzVdSFXPtcVCW0C7lIB4hRvrIdTk9o1bY%3D&reserved=0 > >>> . > >>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&sdata=8XOOsqngl%2FpA3jOwSSdHFpCfvXwUb%2BESv7EK4%2ByG7dA%3D&reserved=0 > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
