[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06.txt

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Thu, 15 April 2021 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7B33A1DB7; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ZK2swUTndlVx; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f44.google.com (mail-ej1-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018833A1DB6; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f44.google.com with SMTP id mh2so14990584ejb.8; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lBDow9EjkXambtX/sm/lH+5olu5RWw9ovnpu7cPP/+Q=; b=Bq0hfV42lYanXfNgMhicBhhbSD5ok0allw+brdSegLirOH/CUFdOK7l7TufPrfIjJJ nkBMQtbA1fo1Xn4WJ9WoMfhoTRkG8NYvRnCE6fM2ZqbU8KXjDybN+avRuSvTkLE+y87C ohXiXvWyvMHroUFOjN6myPewULg0NML7wBARUol09dgkk7H73xyCDZ90otRz4JnxCqiT m8ELoH0kE528HmnnkksID2yot/p5n1DeQfKaG92q6JwPVPTvquuhr0R8UigZP0t7yyG9 9fAv48ZICwa+Xth+oabqpCEqvBPQguR5gzy/3LeYVzOGD7kk0W8t4G4O3bbcsYE2JoPl C9iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530LA9nUEuzyrOGDUlOjirZWzGILSgsHi4t5fYileHyldSTiPeF+ SVhWynBBS7ogTQPF4hZtoyl69L/Mjj5U/KN2jr3YDmq0KbU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJys7RR7qjkNFdJcSSBhzDGC/QNtmoehSCX7bMNl54Fw+KEVh2JxQcNkPrrqCyN5AslyQPcCfY0oiSGpV+lhG5U=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:46d6:: with SMTP id k22mr3057900ejs.243.1618489212615; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CANK0pbZjmy6bd5dRTZakBoTr4Nfmfuoj-oFkcpM2re42ZEJPFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000973e0505c001e27b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/LWcegRsmXuXVoY4OLTiXFmIMDM0>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:20:24 -0000

 Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06
Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli
Review Date: April 15th 2021
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
    This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
    The doc reads fine from my perspective. Caveat: YANG doctor I am not ;)

Major Issues:

    No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

    No minor issues found.

Nits:

# in Section 2.1
Since rfc8349 defines RIB, so why not list RIB in the previous (imported
terms) section?

# in Section 3.
Proposed rephrase:

"The models in [RFC8349] ... and more next-hop attributes."

=> The models in [RFC8349] also define the basic configuration and
   operational state for both IPv4 and IPv6 static routes. This
   document provides augmentations for static routes to support
   multiple next-hop and more next-hop attributes.

# in Section 5:

## in leaf metric description, a typo:
"The metric is a numeric value that indicating ..."
=> "The metric is a numeric value indicating"

## in  leaf application-tag description, is this a typo (?):
"... while this application-specific tag is not advertised implicitly."
=> "... while this application-specific tag is not advertised explicitly."

## in  container repair-path description:
Full stop missing at the end of the description.

## in  leaf preference description (two occurences, for v4 and v6) a typo
(comma instead of full-stop):
"The preference is used to select among multiple static routes, Routes..."
=> "The preference is used to select among multiple static routes.
Routes..."