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

Ladislav Lhotka <> Tue, 25 October 2016 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495B9129AE7; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.431
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fjCz9i24QHt8; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5304D12940B; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:d920:d626:9e75:b472] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:d920:d626:9e75:b472]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB02160D9D; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1477382206; bh=T9AadQMCoQ2SyqQA78l+mWg7oqa+nHqpP2tfAXm5Koc=; h=From:Date:To; b=VginAIp9JwRIfcKBV89JxCcB01jP8QUZzj5BgJwlSn21/0TOayhp7fOOx2GXq8z1M kewRnr4BdC6C6A3V6Z+12iryhpg5vVtFcaJDzx+XYLrDFZy0+chIGxMh3yvEtKSx3C NehSjRB2Cb2HTpYB1Xjvh5TqGrtJrnf4ZTMOsmbM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:56:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:56:54 -0000

Hi Brian,

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

> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <> 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
> <>.
> 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
> "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