Re: [i2rs] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin: 

Thank you for your comments.  The authors work will to clarify this portion. 

As I recall (and my memory may be spotty), the reason was available for both "yes" and "no" in case "yes" it is active, and "no" it is not installed (example - 20 ECMP routes and only 10 get installed).   Nitin may have more details on this RFC. 

Cheerily, Susan Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 9:37 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; Susan Hares; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I share Warren's question (and, IIRC, asked a similar one about the associated data-model document).

Just one other minor question: in Section 4

   Route programming in the RIB MUST result in a return code that
   contains the following attributes:

   o  Installed - Yes/No (Indicates whether the route got installed in
      the FIB)

   o  Active - Yes/No (Indicates whether a route is fully resolved and
      is a candidate for selection)

   o  Reason - e.g., Not authorized

Is the Reason only relevant when one of the other two is "No"?