Hi Tom, Thank you for your review and comments. I’ve submitted version -11 to address your comments with detailed answers below.
One open issue is about inet:ip-address, while we wait for consensus on this topic we can continue progress this draft. Thanks, Yingzhen > On May 4, 2022, at 3:02 AM, t petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/05/2022 01:01, Jeff Tantsura wrote: >> Dear RTGWG, >> >> This mail begins a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on >> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-10. > > I find some of the language less than clear. > > RFC8349 is specific that a RIB is for a single address family (which is not > how I see it used in other places) so I think that that needs calling out in > section 1. <Yingzhen> I updated the description in section 1 to match RFC8349. > > tag is defined in RFC8349 as 16 bit and specific to RIP. Here it is 32 bit > and generic. I do not understand what is meant by the YANG leaf tag in this > I-D. <Yingzhen> do you mean the tag in the example model in RFC 8349 appendix C? Which is an example for tag might be used in RIP. The YANG left tag in this I-D if for a tag in a RIB, which might be achieved through different routing protocols. Now you mention it, I’m thinking wether this should be changed to leaf-list. > > tree snapshot is used in several places but these are not snapshots, extracts > perhaps. <Yingzhen> I’ll leave this to RFC editor for editorial change. > > the YANG module is scrappy, lots of independent scraps. This can be made > clearer with a > /* comment */ > line at the start of each scrap. Of course the comment needs to be correct; > the YANG description of the first augment seems at odds with the augment > itself. <Yingzhen> This is due to the augmentations are really scattered. > > active route seems a different concept from RFC8349. Here it is per protocol > per destination prefix; in RFC8349 it is per destination prefix. <Yingzhen> This I-D is only augmenting with more route attributes. If you meant the “active-routes” in the protocol statistics, yes, this is per-protocol, and there is total-active-routes for one RIB. > > I assume that the choice of inet:ip-address is deliberate, following RFC8349. <Yingzhen> yes, this is following RFC8349. I’ve been been following the discussions, and waiting for a community consensus. > > There is an RFC somewhere specifying the representation of IPv6 addresses > which I cannot find but think that the JSON example gets it right and the XML > example gets it wrong. <Yingzhen> do you mean "0::/0” or "::/0” ? Thanks for catching this, I change the xml example to “::/0” to be consistent with JSON. > > Tom Petch > > >> >> The authors have addressed all the comments received from the wg, YANG >> doctors >> and routing directorate have been addressed, thanks authors for timely >> responses. >> >> IPR: No IPR has been submitted against this draft. >> >> Authors - please respond to the WG whether you are aware of any applicable >> IPR. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
