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

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

thank you for the review. Please see my replies inline.

> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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