Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-yang-09.txt

Hi Tom, 

Thank you for your explanation!

Sorry for the late response.  I failed to find the associated discussion you mentioned in the NETMOD mailing list. 

According to your point, the non-zone ip-address is more suitable for RIFT YANG. 

But I am confused because AFAIK there is no zone in the ip address of OSPF or IS-IS also, but OSPF and IS-IS is still using the ip-address with zone, right?

If OSPF and IS-IS will modify the model?

Best regards,

Sandy

Original

From: tompetch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: 张征00007940;
Cc: rift@ietf.org <rift@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年09月11日 19:56
Subject: Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-yang-09.txt

From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
Sent: 11 September 2023 01:37

Hi Tom,

The RIFT YANG was updated.

Some terminilogies were added according to your comments.

About the zone in ip-address, we think that there is no special consideration in RIFT after the discussion among co-author.

So we'd like to be align with other IGP protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS.

<tp>

That may be the blind leading the blind:-(

When this topic, of the default YANG type for ip addresses including the zone, surfaced on the NETMOD list recently, there was much discussion and it was apparent that a number of authors of RFC had not read the specification and had  assumed that an IPv6 address was 128 bit and not 128 bit plus an undefined number of zone characters.  A number of such wanted to make a non-backwards compatible change to RFC6991 so that the  
typedef ipv6-address 
would no longer include the zone and that those who had read the specification and knew what they wanted would have to go back and produce new RFC, the innocent suffering for their wisdom.

So when you see a specification the 'no-zone' in it I think that it is safe to assume that the authors had read the specification and knew what they wanted; but if you see a specification without the 'no-zone' then I think that you cannot draw the inference that is the correct type.

Sometimes you can tell from the protocol specification.  If the address field is defined as 16 octet, then clearly 'no-zone' is intended.  Looking at rift-rift I cannot tell.

Tom Petch

Thank you for your further review and comments.

Best regards,

Sandy

<http://www.zte.com.cn/>

<http://www.zte.com.cn/>

Original
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org <i-d-announce@ietf.org>;
Cc: rift@ietf.org <rift@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年09月08日 14:39
Subject: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-yang-09.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rift-yang-09.txt is now available. It is a work item
of the Routing In Fat Trees (RIFT) WG of the IETF.

   Title:   YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT)
   Authors: Zheng Zhang
            Yuehua Wei
            Shaowen Ma
            Xufeng Liu
            Bruno Rijsman
   Name:    draft-ietf-rift-yang-09.txt
   Pages:   45
   Dates:   2023-09-07

Abstract:

   This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration and
   management of Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) Protocol.  The model is
   based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC7950 and conforms to the Network
   Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as described in RFC8342.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-yang/

There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rift-yang-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rift-yang-09

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

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