Hi Tom, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my answers below inline.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:33 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > I thought that I had commented on this Last Call but perhaps not. > > The English is quirky, e.g. mixed singular and plural, missing definite > and indefinite articles and such like but I do not think that that > impairs my understanding. > > [Yingzhen]: Would you please provide some details? I expect the RFC editor will fix English grammar issues if there are any. > Contacts needs https: > [Yingzhen]: fixed. > The examples use the line folding convention which needs a reference > else our XML reviewers will complain > [Yingzhen]: Added a reference to RFC 8792. What makes life more difficult is the terminology which I find > inconsistent e.g. tag, route tag, administrative tag - are these the > same or different? and if different, which is the YANG leaf tag? RIP > has a tag which I think different but perhaps confusing to those who are > familiar with it. > [Yingzhen]: There is no RFC for a RIB definition, and we picked commonly used terms in the industry. when you say "RIP has a tag", do you mean the RIP example in Appendix C in RFC 8349? If so, leaf "tag" applies to a route. > The Introduction sounds very generic in its talk of routing protocols > but I think that it promises more than it delivers; the YANG description > seem to do the same in places. The reality is that in some places only > static routes are augmented; what about dynamic routes? And where they > are augmented then I think that that needs calling out. In a similar > vein, I think the first paragraph of s.3 wrong. > > [Yingzhen]: Dynamic routes are augmented by routing protocol models, for example, OSPF model (RFC 9129) has the following: augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route: +--ro metric? uint32 +--ro tag? uint32 +--ro route-type? route-type > 'The following tree snapshot' looks like an extract to me, not a snapshot. > [Yingzhen]: It's part of the entire tree. What do you suggest as the right term? > I have commented in the past about active route and I still find it > tautological. > > Authors address gmail.com.com? > [Yingzhen]: fixed. Tom Petch > > On 17/04/2023 22:40, The IESG wrote: > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG > > (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'RIB Extension YANG Data > Model' > > <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > [email protected] mailing lists by 2023-05-01. Exceptionally, comments > may > > be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning > > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > Abstract > > > > > > A 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. > 1111111111111111> > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > . > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
