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 Tom,

Thanks for the thought. Section 3 includes the complete tree diagram for the model. We have received different suggestions and opinions on this topic. I have read your comments on the NETMOD mailing list. Your opinion is appreciated. However, we have also received comments to request the complete, un-altered tree diagram for easy referencing. Some implementers mentioned that the tree diagram is the first section they look at, and the one that needs to be referenced often. 

I'd hope a consensus on this. For now, we'd keep it as is.

Thanks,

- Xufeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom p. [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 8:03 AM
> To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>; ietf <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Alia Atlas <[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
> 
> 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >