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

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yingzhen,

Yes. Thanks for the reminder.

Regards,
- Xufeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yingzhen Qu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:55 PM
> To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>; tom p. <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> (A YANG Data Model
> for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Hi Xufeng,
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> 
> Adam has comments about the description of address and Benoit has some nits
> comments, are you going to address those soon?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
> 
> On 1/12/18, 12:18 PM, "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     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
>     > To: tom p. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>     > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> (A YANG Data
> Model
>     > for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >  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.
>     > > >
>     > >
> 
>