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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 01:54 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D37129AB4; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17kojG-daUgr; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 CAA1A1294B7; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id d2so11219321pfd.0; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:18 -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=adCCGxiK7UAw1pYLhrqgOd7e25N43dWZITEY29tW5uw=; b=TZdR4fvaxzWahI1Pd8sM1r/Qc7fvTmCY9eqHg35a0qtnxFQ5U2e1JkDUbwcoRnpyLL pFgwew6XmOtW+C4ZPCh4Ckt08avuK1Ra/sTF+ZeUbvhILDaRPXdYP9oE3Ju6rxs7z65D VOPCBBGLlkBH5qseKEhP+u3sHZ173Ub2AUSf/aPffjg8NDDNS4jSEmmPM1JQBMi1A9Ny kjWHXbSnulc/FCgatjX4UwQfNaWXbWg7lTqg71zSDzes2mM3fDydZlemoo9lIo5wJvc4 v2JggX89dwbzK31fYBT5Q965HxJ5yxBj2CMpO0e1CQDYXB2ZcB6EOHipsyWY7vw1LL8i RQMQ==
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=adCCGxiK7UAw1pYLhrqgOd7e25N43dWZITEY29tW5uw=; b=DJ2BmnshVPN2h+FyKC30C2aWB8qn8vaV8KK6Du9qOL/4t7WAM9kefo+n0VjcElDBnG jZczUjRIaL9ORSKa3PgIZmow3T1vAawQuldY3iXl9nsHR0Cod0WolfoczHOncKLXT5Ws S5oi4F8DxZm2PVuWHhOHZ1AFUc8yegFQmGDZsfVKB0X0auZ43p+plytdpZwATSbAl/FF gM1AcHhizswKj7rAFJWECGJ/08n7bXGEI9lYRceAa+e6xGFtrQFVQfnsa+aOxsxPJag8 9KZk0buGIA/ovJslC2F6SHLqdaYMjo33QaCS2DVXgYL96TbeI9toTdDW6SxwjGcg7jec JBiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveN42fU4BZSNvtNjIijbEwBJ47RtoUDgJHmaSlK9YSMckovl0/K7THTV1VEpA0yfQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x15mr45420177pgo.105.1477965258115; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:18 -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 y2sm38183644pfk.54.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
References: <b9c5ad42-3c48-e0d6-6c0f-5d7509ddf7fb@gmail.com> <9A1178EF-F6B3-42DF-A4A8-E0FCD675CF87@nic.cz>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <a4259dc8-3e05-752a-4955-a483f51da4dd@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:54:18 +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: <9A1178EF-F6B3-42DF-A4A8-E0FCD675CF87@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Ur5EbXXEolQ1kauezaHyLey9IU0>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org
Subject: [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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 01:54:21 -0000

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.


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