Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yingzhen,

From: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks for the review, please see my answers below.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:43 AM Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang
Review result: Has Issues

I have the following one nit comment and one question:

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
    + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
    + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop"
  {
    description
      "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path.";
    uses repair-path;
  }

The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single next-hop in
the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops".
[Yingzhen] how about: "Augment the next-hop with a repair path."

Zzh> Good.

Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well?
[Yingzhen]: Theoretically you can have a repair-path for a static route, but have you seen this in deployment?

Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a static route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1 is down).

Zzh> Jeffrey


Juniper Business Use Only