Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 02 November 2016 07:01 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 4C29C1294E3; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HMYeo83WXW_H; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09582126CD8; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C032CEEA; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:01:00 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9m2wxlPA42s2; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:00:59 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D9F2CED1; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:00:59 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83168885-532C-4735-9FCB-229AAD8EF637"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <a4259dc8-3e05-752a-4955-a483f51da4dd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:00:58 +0200
Message-Id: <FF682A06-779F-4483-AE47-6FA2F9E4C3D8@piuha.net>
References: <b9c5ad42-3c48-e0d6-6c0f-5d7509ddf7fb@gmail.com> <9A1178EF-F6B3-42DF-A4A8-E0FCD675CF87@nic.cz> <a4259dc8-3e05-752a-4955-a483f51da4dd@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/pekf_XF3DyH8o3wmcHwrkFmIH2o>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 07:01:05 -0000
Thanks, all. I’m balloting no-objection. Jari On 01 Nov 2016, at 03:54, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [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