Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review and comments. We have submitted version -10 to address your comments, please see my detailed response below starting with [YQ].

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On 2/19/19, 4:26 AM, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

    Two uncertainties strike me.

    One is terminology, which caused some discussion in the production of
    the original YANG routing module.  When I see the terminology used, e.g.
    admin distance, I immediately think of one manufacturer so I wonder how
    other manufacturers see it and would like to see their agreement that
    the terminology makes sense for them  (even if everyone here is of
    course contributing as an individual).
[YQ]: We're still using "preference" consistent with RFC 8349. The term, "admin distance",  is only included parenthetically for explanation. 

    More technically, I wonder at the specification of repair routes.  One
    thought is placement, it is described as
             "Augment a route with a list of repair-paths.";
    which is not strictly true since it augments
         augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"            + "rt:routes"
    i.e. the container and not a route therein (which is the case for the
    augmentation with a tag).  I am unsure where a list of repair routes
    belongs in the schema - it seems to me that it could be anywhere.
[YQ]: this was done based on WG's suggestion (sorry, forgot who made it) to make the model "slim". The list of repair paths is at "routes" level with an "id", at each "route" level, a repair path is reference this "id". By doing so, if a bunch of routes are using the same repair path, so they can just reference the same id instead of repeating the whole repair path multiple times.
See below tree diagram for an example:
   augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes:
    +--ro repair-route* [id]
       +--ro id          string                     <--------- "id" is defined here. 
       +--ro next-hop
       |  +--ro outgoing-interface?   if:interface-state-ref
       |  +--ro next-hop-address?     inet:ip-address
       +--ro metric?     uint32
   augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route
            /rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop:
    +--ro repair-path?
            -> /rt:routing/ribs/rib/routes/repair-route/id         <-------------------referenced here.

    Related to this, is there any requirement for repair routes to exist or
    be valid i.e.is this missing a few 'must' or such like statements?
   [YQ]: repair path is optional, so no "must" statement is needed.

    While I am at it, the reference in the YANG module to RFC8242 should be
    RFC8342 IMHO.  And the YANG module is version 1.1 so the reference in
    the Introduction must be RFC7950; I cannot understand this I-D using
    only RFC6020.
[YQ]: fixed.

    Tom Petch

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
    To: "RTGWG" <rtgwg@ietf.org>; "Routing WG" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>;
    <draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend@ietf.org>
    Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 7:18 PM
    Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" -
    draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

    > Dear RTGWG,
    >
    > The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt
    draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
    > as the working group documents.
    >
    > The authors have addressed the comments raised.
    >
    > Please indicate support or no-support by March 3rd, 2019.
    >
    > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please
    > respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of
    > any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG
    > mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage
    > until a response has been received from each author and each
    > individual that has contributed to the document.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Jeff
    >

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------

    > _______________________________________________
    > rtgwg mailing list
    > rtgwg@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
    >