Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1723B120026 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 05:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=G5eEcetE; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=d5OEA6Q+
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 Ufv7F4xixKGb for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2019 05:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FF6120019 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 05:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7957; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558615339; x=1559824939; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=hYI+lcwmnjlEWkRLO2ifNBlmrBTimVeAhwkjYIwqdfk=; b=G5eEcetE9wQP4r5EG/Pf8EdZ815BN4o/d364j1qIYZ3qZ32QEENg+B41 ZXNAELsFeOXgJu/+Z1WDB0hgoJ7Zj5RQYg/sJpE5Yiaj4sFBuUn7tbga4 2xakj/KffZnzcz484818pQHRg45yxStJhgxltU4FZwIivPQmQeEm26oPc E=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:hoJv0hZOdaAzBo6X3WoSvG7/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20QKbRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNHwQAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuJfXnYgQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BoAABDlOZc/49dJa1kHQEBBQEHBQGBUQgBCwGBDi9QA2lVIAQLKAqECYNHA4RSiiOCV5JZhFCBLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBIwoCAQGEQBmCISM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAwMSER0BATgRAQgOAwMBAisCBDAdCgQBEiKDAAGBHU0DHQECDJs3AoE3iF9xgS+CeQEBBYJHgkIYgg8DBoE0AYtRF4F/gREnH4IeLj6CYQEBAgGBfg2CXTKCJo4HhF6VXQkCgg2GMoxcG5Y4jGSGfY5iAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOIFXcBU7KgGCQYIPg3CFFIU/cgGBKIwMAYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,503,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="551609831"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 May 2019 12:42:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4NCgH4d007132 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42:17 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 07:42:17 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 07:42:16 -0500
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 23 May 2019 07:42:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hYI+lcwmnjlEWkRLO2ifNBlmrBTimVeAhwkjYIwqdfk=; b=d5OEA6Q+gQIZrgtTC5I783bqGkSXZfZhyFdZt8Y7KdCCEhVr0g2gVzpRmXsz7fa9MQB14yYTvNjI/NGqidCkJ+2uMuRsi++hM+9Ka0wU5gRH3VF1/A0SnCGEnFdb8RqNItjJKo5yYEFhjk/+kMxFczQiYBBivmabcYqvd3jNiEQ=
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.93.24) by SN6PR11MB3024.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.125.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.18; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42:15 +0000
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3006:a080:19fa:623e]) by SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3006:a080:19fa:623e%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.018; Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42:15 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
Thread-Index: AQHVEWTzPl2kNQ5Z20W7LLwzcEXiuQ==
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9345A1DA-3C43-45DC-B945-EFE7E6DAE6F2@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.81]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 56c4c9de-5dfe-4586-6de3-08d6df7c15ba
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR11MB3024;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR11MB3024:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR11MB30246CDD3CE4E8ECC7B8EA04C2010@SN6PR11MB3024.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-forefront-prvs: 00462943DE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(366004)(346002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(66574012)(7736002)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(26005)(102836004)(6246003)(99286004)(236005)(229853002)(8936002)(256004)(86362001)(6506007)(186003)(6116002)(91956017)(76116006)(73956011)(6486002)(9326002)(53546011)(66946007)(2501003)(3846002)(66066001)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(36756003)(5660300002)(68736007)(25786009)(53936002)(6436002)(606006)(476003)(2616005)(71200400001)(14454004)(71190400001)(486006)(82746002)(83716004)(110136005)(33656002)(6512007)(478600001)(316002)(54896002)(2906002)(6306002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR11MB3024; H:SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ni3X7avMdeo9YMZuJDq/1GTNNjtpXhDu040mKGuhFeIWfN1ZtoCm0DvjY1J3ZYMEm2Dwt/mkOU+kng3QitlVE+2eYBor19kFYLegsPoPlhp1hTxbwsUHDA96w7KByp3EiALUrVq/aQPTHgCNhdQTzAhSg3k0ZjSQkCMt4YZWP22ZS8/D74G9ulz8WkN8lBHtl9OZRodxzIrcya9sCr9gdJ0hchGA9RExMn/edhviLPZ+F9PYMEyQgT8aFkOhjbCHnBzJpYznEUArRSP00v7O5xa8Om8IgPVmb8svG/NEXho4U7P0uugnVvs/6GtuTIJCQ2eijFTqPJ4a5IA8UldW1eObnSQEB60LpE7iW0LwQbjMekLWe8DDPmpO54QJg7Le8k8ZtNtN78NCWS1kTaw3J9ghDHtBrntWP+6n3Kd9MKM=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9345A1DA3C4345DCB945EFE7E6DAE6F2ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 56c4c9de-5dfe-4586-6de3-08d6df7c15ba
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2019 12:42:15.1442 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR11MB3024
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uxKZiVeecxyEl4CXNpwry7w6gec>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 12:42:22 -0000

Hi Qin,

Are you familiar with any BGP and/or router RIB implementations? The global RIB defined in RFC 8349 and the BRIB defined in the draft BGP YANG model you reference are very different things. The BGP RIB (BRIB) should remain under BGP as it is in the existing draft.

Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 2:37 AM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Hi, authors and all:
It is not clear to me why we define augmentation of the ietf-routing in two different draft, one is in the draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 which augment common rib building block in ietf-routing with multiple next-hop support,
The other is in the BGP YANG model (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2..3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2.3>) which augment ietf-routing with BGP RIB specific parameters.
I would suggest to factor out BGP RIB into a separate draft or draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 and define lightweight BGP model and move forward.
Let me know if you have disagreement on this.

-Qin