Hi Yingzhen, From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
[External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for the review, please see my answers below. Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:43 AM Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang Review result: Has Issues I have the following one nit comment and one question: augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" { description "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path."; uses repair-path; } The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single next-hop in the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops". [Yingzhen] how about: "Augment the next-hop with a repair path." Zzh> Good. Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well? [Yingzhen]: Theoretically you can have a repair-path for a static route, but have you seen this in deployment? Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a static route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1 is down). Zzh> Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
