Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard

["tom p." <[e-mail]>]

Xufeng

Looks good

The only outstanding thought is about the tree diagram where the netmod
I-D says
"As tree diagrams are intended to provide a simplified
   view of a module, diagrams longer than a page should generally be
   avoided.   "
but, as was discussed on the netmod WG list, this can be hard to
achieve.  You currently have four pages and the only way I can see to
split this would be to separate the ipv4 and ipv6 sections with a brief
paragraph, just a sentence,  separating the three parts of the tree
diagram, albeit with one long part and two short parts.  I would
consider this worth the effort but leave it up to you.

If you look at the OSPF and BFD YANG tree diagrams you can see how
sub-dividing can work.

(My own take is that too a long tree diagram reflects a too flat module
structure and that the module structure should be changed, but this view
has yet to gain traction!)

I take your point about the description clauses.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 8:18 PM


> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for your valuable comments. We have updated the document with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-08, to address
these comments.
>
> Regards,
> - Xufeng
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tom p. [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:13 PM
> >
> >  I think that this I-D falls somewhat short of the standard
necessary for
> > advancement.
> >
> >  'reference' statements are almost wholy lacking from the YANG
module and
> > while it might be reasonable to expect the reader to know where to
find
> > information on RIP or RIPng, I do not think that that extends to
other IGP or
> > IPsec.  If you want to see how it SHOULD be done, look at
> >         draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01
> >  One or more 'reference' statement per 'container' or'leaf'
statement is  a good
> > starting point.
> [Xufeng] The situation is different from RFC7277, where attributes
from different referenced documents are put together in a same
container. In the RIP model, almost all attributes refer to the same
three documents RFC2453, RFC2080, and RFC1724. If we add them to each
container or leaf, we'd have to repeat these three everywhere. Therefore
we put the references at the beginning to avoid the repetition. In case
when some specific reference is needed, such as authentication, we add
the reference to RFC8177 in that container. Is this ok?
>
> >
> >  Talking of which,
> >     [I-D.bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis]
> >     [I-D.bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis]
> >     [I-D.acee-netmod-rfc8022bis]
> >  have all been replaced.  I am unclear whether or not this
invalidates  the
> > announcement, since these appeared in the announcement as downrefs.
> [Xufeng] Updated in the new version.
> >
> >  Common (best) practice is to then include all the references from
the  YANG
> > module in a separate section immediately prior to the module itself
so that the
> > reader can readily find them.
> >  Again
> >         draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01
> >  Section 4 is an example of how to do this.
> [Xufeng] We use Sec 1.3 for this purpose.
> >
> >  The YANG module does reference
> >            RFC 1724
> >  but I think that that makes it Normative not Informative, as it
currently is.
> [Xufeng] Changed it to normative as you suggested.
> >
> >  The Abstract is limp.
> >  "This document describes a data model for the Routing Information
> >     Protocol (RIP).  "
> >  So what?.  This should tell me what I can do, e.g. configure,
manage,  get
> > statistics or what?
> >  draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01
> >  gives a better example.  At this point in time, with NMDA causing
significant
> > changes, the Abstract would do well to mention where the I-D  stands
with
> > regard to this.
> [Xufeng] Updated with more information as you suggested.
> >
> >  There is now an emerging RFC on tree diagrams
> >  draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-03
> >  The authors might consider using and referencing this.
> [Xufeng] New version references the latest draft now.
> >
> >  Tom Petch
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:29 PM
> > > >
> > > > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working
Group
> > WG
> > > > (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model
for
> > > Routing
> > > > Information Protocol (RIP)'
> > > >   <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
> > > >
> > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> > solicits
> > > final
> > > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > > > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2017-12-12. Exceptionally,
comments
> > may
> > > be
> > > > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> > > beginning of
> > > > the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > > >
> > > > Abstract
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    This document describes a data model for the Routing
Information
> > > >    Protocol (RIP).  Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are covered.
> > > >
> > >
>
>