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

>From a process perspective I disagree with this. Just because the 2 drafts will end up going to RFC-ed queue at the same time does not mean we should be adding circular references.

But if that's what the IESG would like me to, I'd be happy to put in a sentence. Please provide me specifics of where I should add the sentence and what the sentence should look like.

Thanks
Nitin

On 4/13/18, 9:04 AM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

    Nitin: 

    On #1) -  These drafts will work through the process at the same time.
    There will be a "MISREF" - but it should be cleared.   

    Originally we were concerned about this fact because we wanted to send the
    I2RS Info model earlier.  However, due to the network management datastore
    model work in netmod/netconf - this work has been held up. 

    Please put the reference in and spin it as -16.txt. 

    Thanks!

    Sue Hares 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
    Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:09 AM
    To: Alvaro Retana; The IESG
    Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; Susan Hares;
    draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
    draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Alvaro,

       Thanks for the review. Please see NB> below    

        (1) Even if just Informative, it would be nice to have a reference to
        draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model.

    NB> I'm not sure how referencing works. If I understand correctly,
    rib-info-model then can't be published until data-model is published...and
    then there is circular referencing.

        (2) I think that the use of some Normative Language is not as expected.

        (2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing
        instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."  In both cases
    "MAY"
        seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to
    indicate that
        a routing instance can optionally include RIBs.  

    NB> Rewording to " A network device MAY contain routing instances and each
    routing instance MAY contain RIBs."

    Note that S2.2 (Routing
        instance) identifies a rib-list as a mandatory component of a routing
    instance,
        and there's no clear indication that the list may be empty.

    NB> Good point. I'll fix that.

        (2.2) S2.1: "A routing instance MAY even have two or more RIBs of the
    same rib
        family (e.g., IPv6)."  This use of "MAY" also seems to be stating a
    fact.

    NB> Yes it is a fact. So removed use of "MAY".

        (2.3) "MAY be optionally", "MAY contain the following optional fields"
    are
        redundant phrases as MAY already means optional.

     NB> Good point. Fixed.

    Thanks
    Nitin   

    _______________________________________________
    i2rs mailing list
    i2rs@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs