Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 20:01 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 649A8129698; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:48 -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 1vIXUn05UsS4; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (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 061AA1294DB; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id n85so17247741pfi.1; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ttY8xfSmoDRWm2akrMhdhbCp6W/5o5BdIrxtIA09HaU=; b=btlLPk0vJYlYLABLSb1kw44MIHKSXoRJ2zfaVHLxShHlLlLPgVMJ5RYyRb9wv/gk6i pKHD6N/NJyuacHP1iX8tt64EVSpedaHxg8gyDOJqNe9tWM1nT8Gj6ftM/Bb+8QmcEtlo La5azpCCELlXiaxdL/T3OtQYAcsYbOOc0srff5XzNt/oEdBNiyD1IpxdgqLkdiEfz72N gbj1O+VKuM+o0EE8ivy6145VP8rdsCdL9ruENdepK4UNr41VBblr1+EJ6o728ckj5MUF NXfxdoLUscCmkQx63ukZh4rWM3NykCUi/w3LdJUzuXZkbgT2jZNSYEjhiek04ClYFJut fGyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ttY8xfSmoDRWm2akrMhdhbCp6W/5o5BdIrxtIA09HaU=; b=BR9U82gGegPvc/Sj/IsvyL14s0lhyV8Vdt6IcCbXIswsCMIIWMnSh+D2zC9yClr6Te 5gIC7Kf9LDJ4S6nz4NzIkFYBlUGlptSX+xPIKJg1OKumWsCzcTrJh0N98wuUb5rUAvt1 RN3b4w0tlqD5mrlmlH7mOMfmHl+kebQW9tpNMfc7L9GNM3ZH1IFDsZ8UubeTFE/5bYtM p+gUoxbzH5xYZ2JPbGmr0LQbY10G88JfqWbaNMByGx4npRY4qH02JbwAF/9V1QUxthVo Y2O3hxmML9I3I7ZNJ23Cofly0ik3W/GnP7LKGcIwZLAa/+uslRy0G/WgfYmAlNLC39Qd EFCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdwlvbG0HVpAKTIfbVSIj5W1kmmvhobHQRrqW947Vybo0Bxn4pJ9doh+V1HnLkW6w==
X-Received: by 10.98.93.201 with SMTP id n70mr9884250pfj.161.1478116906217; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] ([118.148.78.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af14sm6752270pac.13.2016.11.02.13.01.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
References: <b9c5ad42-3c48-e0d6-6c0f-5d7509ddf7fb@gmail.com> <9A1178EF-F6B3-42DF-A4A8-E0FCD675CF87@nic.cz> <a4259dc8-3e05-752a-4955-a483f51da4dd@gmail.com> <m2vaw527pm.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <3d468842-a61d-82c0-e74a-a76ba8a0ac67@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:01:49 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2vaw527pm.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/F_dx4nSkgFQvDSpi6Db4FjDqedQ>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat 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: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:01:48 -0000
Lada, I don't feel strongly about it; it's between you and the IESG. FYI, that draft is in the editing stage, so will certainly be an RFC before yours. Regards Brian On 03/11/2016 04:59, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Brian, > > after looking into draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10, it seems to me > that > > - this document doesn't change the set of router configuration > parameters specified in RFC 4861, > > - our data model neither prevents nor discourages the settings > recommended in draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10. > > If this is correct, I would say that a normative reference to > draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10 is not needed. RFC 4861 is a > normative reference in routing-cfg only because it defines the > configuration parameters, which doesn't mean that routing-cfg endorses > RFC 4861 as a whole. > > Thanks, Lada > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> writes: > >> This didn't have a chance to be updated before the cutoff, >> so technically it's still "Ready with Issues", but I am >> completely happy with Lada's proposed changes. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 25/10/2016 20:56, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> thank you for the review. Please see my replies inline. >>> >>>> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Indeed, this data model is intended as a basis for other models, e.g. for routing protocols. Several such model are already under way. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Will add. >>> >>>> >>>> 2) >>>> Did you consider doing anything explicit for ULA prefixes, or would >>>> this just be handled by special-next-hop/prohibit in border routers? >>> >>> >>> The "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" submodule just tries to cover the parameters specified in RFC 4861. I understand that configuration specific to ULA prefixes is an add-on to this base set, and this can be implemented via augmenting the core model from other modules. >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Yes, good point, will do. >>> >>> Thanks, Lada >>> >>> -- >>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Ladislav Lhotka
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-n… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter