Hi Jeffrey, I've submitted version -17 and updated the description.
For the static routes, I'm leaving as it is unless we receive more feedback asking for augmentation of repair-path. Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:05 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yingzhen, > > > > I can go with that if that’s what the authors/WG’s preference, but my > preference would be to cover it in the base specification itself. What’s > the harm? > > > > Anyway, this is not a blocking comment. > > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey > > > > *From:* Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2023 5:01 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, > > > > Considering this is not commonly used, I'd suggest if someone really needs > it they can do an easy augmentation using the grouping defined in this > draft. > > > > Thanks, > > Yingzhen > > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]> 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 > > > Juniper Business Use Only >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
