IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 24 October 2016 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0CFF129464; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Unu02vvUoVW2; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C4B129476; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 128so106921177pfz.0; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:to:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CIh6TyUKK1PGQuIcAvYHlg4saZ+aSwXqtoLshrQJErs=; b=m2bY7x0p+DPDGHnWNQhcI7IOQSCzBO+frDXLs7+MrWjWEgFvHuK6foXKLXysFEtk0i tCKrxoWWGV1Np3VkpP1P6qG0NPfCgeYsRn5WljmNN2IRRa3w3/Z9NeXZfXCvCCc+Yplk 2CUTsUhDuLMOF279NAMnQa/cXT6PyiR6eXC06hyiF6lsNkktdiNhglmQ8NPppU21AdbG y84U6zlKyLvHml7ddt5YtDKp1kTS5h8mxUc4F1wsu0CGNc0xXLTSXm8Z01vkKCMFL5+Q ut0eG10/qukDiIyUTGVIjKzztGlE+mVbMzO6aLl5dITsYHzxqT6LKr4sjaICaRjAaCQn fgGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CIh6TyUKK1PGQuIcAvYHlg4saZ+aSwXqtoLshrQJErs=; b=ZUa7c+gztw5eQspO5jgfrbVOBZG1EbC9agVpo7EIRA0s8iy6rdWslqcYpY0MmDXsT5 22WhoVy5OFzWZI7jyPoIkNX52Cz/WDcLSetzU9Fm+lnw1ErFBk8uM4+rGENSyoijhFHa c9uYd0/hUXiwedCljkGHUGfx7zcOqrojgXw7Qk2jQzUvEzza1nE6Gz0r+zG9KJ/fv2pW xjNM7RhERUBgpgCWLYstOn4dVrPCbdBs9p6inXtCiUHpeGWhydAv8adCQab8xnfXjCiL JvfSj1oJ15RydkFtSPZU+C9xDuKEXTp3K5wetmjkVYtylbQrjQPwTLFEEbMRFuPG2dCc VPzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf0WXHNQ42bgVoeAECLr+JtJDsncrD7iqlDfBTWUrOAKA0b9m63wJDvzdq1hHN+3g==
X-Received: by 10.99.63.193 with SMTP id m184mr27283593pga.62.1477350475339; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jz5sm27865536pad.10.2016.10.24.16.07.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <b9c5ad42-3c48-e0d6-6c0f-5d7509ddf7fb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:07:53 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/9LWqRYARGUidNnOB3vT1Q4kK8WU>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:08:01 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-03
IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03

Summary: Ready with (minor) issues
--------

Comments:
---------

This seems to be a fine document. FYI I am not a YANG expert.

There is a dissent on a point of principle in the WG archive at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html:
"Given the historical opposition to revising models once they have been cast as RFCs
that we have seen within the IETF, then I feel that avoiding incomplete models going
to RFC is the best course of action."

My understanding is that YANG models are intrinsically extensible, and this is
noted in the Abstract and Introduction. So I don't find this dissent compelling.

Minor Issues:
-------------

1)
Re on-link-flag and autonomous-flag: Please consider adding a normative
reference to the approved RFC-to-be draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host,
as well as RFC 4861. That document specifies that having both these flags
set to False is a legitimate combination, against current expectations.

2)
Did you consider doing anything explicit for ULA prefixes, or would
this just be handled by special-next-hop/prohibit in border routers?

3)
> Appendix B.  Minimum Implementation
>
>   Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user-
>   defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers.  This appendix
>   gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum
>   of available functions.  Such an implementation may be used for hosts
>   or very simple routers.

IPv6 hosts should definitely not send RFC4861 router advertisements.
Should that be stated in this appendix?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email