Re: Routing Directorate QA Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xufeng,

Thank you for the update. Looking at the diffs, it seems that you have
addressed my comments. This version is fine by me for a QA review at
this stage.

Thanks,

Julien


Jan. 27, 2017 - [e-mail]:
> Hi Julien,
> 
> Thank you much for the review. An updated version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-03 has been posted to address most of these items.
> Please let us know for any further issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:40 AM
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft. For
>> more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>> €‹http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>
>> At this stage, the intend of the following is not to discuss the WG's decision
>> about the I-D, but rather to help improving its content.
>>
>> Please not that I am not deep Yang expert, but RFC 6087 has provided me with
>> valuable guidelines.
>>
>> _Summary_
>> The Yang module specified in the I-D may be almost complete to move forward.
>> The carrying document however deserves an update before going to the next
>> step. I do not repeat every comment raised by Yang doctors in last December,
>> but those need to be addressed as well.
>>
> [Xufeng] Replied in a separate email thread.
> 
>> _Comments_
>> - Add "import ietf-isis" and "import ietf-bgp" (page 9)
> [Xufeng] Added "ietf-isis". The model "ietf-bgp" has expired and fails to compile. We may wait for a newer version of it. Since we do not use any type or grouping from "ietf-bgp", we do not need to import it for now.
> 
>> - According to RFC 6087, section 3.1, "the module description statement MUST
>> contain a reference to the latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement" (p
>> 10).
> [Xufeng] Fixed. Thanks.
> 
>> - Both "prefix-set-ref" and "route-policy-ref" are defined as new types (p 11): is
>> there a reason not to consider them as generic types specified elsewhere (e.g.,
>> among routing types).
> [Xufeng] These two local definitions are intended to refer any common types defined in other models whenever available. At this moment, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ has expired and does not compile. We will update this model whenever an updated policy model is available.
> 
>> - Yangvalidator raises errors on the 6 "must" expressions (cf. Yang doctors'
>> review).
> [Xufeng] Fixed. 
> 
>> - The security section does not say anything about the read/write fields nor the
>> "clear route" RPC: it really requires some work, please see the template in RFC
>> 6087, section 6.1.
> [Xufeng] Updated the security section.
> 
>> - Normative references needs to be updated, at least with the following:
>>   * RFC 6991
>>   * RFC 7223
>>   * RFC 7277
>>   * draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types
>>   * draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain
>>   * draft-ietf-ospf-yang
>>   * draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
>>   * draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
>>   * draft-ietf-bfd-yang
> [Xufeng] Updated.
> 
>> - Reading RFC 1724 (RIPv2 MIB) is clearly unnecessary to understand the
>> document, the reference must thus be moved to the informative list.
> [Xufeng] Adjusted as suggested.
> 
>>
>> _Nits_
>> - In the "bfd-protocol-parms" string (page 10), the abbreviation for "parameters"
>> is unusual; was "params" intended?
> [Xufeng] Changed to "bfd-protocol-parameters"
> 
>> - In "originate-default-route-container" (p 12), to be consistent: s/RIP or RIPng
>> instance/RIP routing instance/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "redistribute-container" (p 12): s/BFP autonomous system/BGP autonomous
>> system/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "list isis" (p 12-13): s/ISIS/IS-IS/  [5 times]
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "list ospfv2" (p 14-15): s/OSPF routing instance into the RIP routing
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> instance/OSPFv2 routing instance into the RIPv2 routing instance/  [twice]
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "route-type" of "list ospfv2" (p 15): s/OSPF routes matching the specified
>> route type into the RIP routing instance/OSPFv2 routes matching the specified
>> route type into the RIPv2 routing instance/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "list ospfv3" (p 15): s/OSPF routing instance into the RIP routing
>> instance/OSPFv3 routing instance into the RIPng routing instance/  [twice]
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "route-type" of "list ospfv3" (p 16): s/OSPF routes matching the specified
>> route type into the RIP routing instance/OSPFv3 routes matching the specified
>> route type into the RIPng routing instance/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "ripv2" (p 16): s/RIP routing instance into the current RIP routing
>> instance/RIPv2 routing instance into the current RIPv2 routing instance/  [twice]
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "leaf listen" of "list interface" (p 29): s/RIP or RIPng/RIPv2 or RIPng/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "container ipv4" (p 31): s/A RIPv2 RIP neighbor/A RIPv2 neighbor/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "container ipv6" (p 33): s/A RIPv2 RIP neighbor/A RIPng neighbor/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>> - In "leaf ipv6-prefix" of "container routes" (p 34): s/in RFC5952)and/in RFC5952)
>> and/
> [Xufeng] Fixed.
> 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Julien
> 
>