RE: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia,

Thanks. We will try to complete the update within a week.

Best,
- Xufeng

From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:03 AM
To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>; Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04

Xufeng,

Thank you very much. I'd like to get this through before next IETF - which means around a 3 week cycle,
with IETF Last Call for 2 weeks & then needing to be timed for the telechat.

Regards,
Alia

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Thanks to Alia for the review the comments.
Thanks to Rob for putting the model through the conversion tool, and providing the suggestions.

We will update the model soon.

Regards,
- Xufeng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 7:57 PM
> To: Robert Wilton <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Alia Atlas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04
>
> Thanks Rob!
>
> Dear authors,
> please publish the updated draft ASAP.
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Robert Wilton
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 08:01
> To: Alia Atlas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04
>
>     So the conversion tool has worked OK on the RIP model as well, but I
>     spotted a few areas where manual conversion is required (because the
>     types/structure between config and state differ):
>
>     So along with the revision date, and a few FIX ME comments, the
>     following few places also need to be manually tweaked/fixed:
>
>     rwilton@rwilton-lnx:~/ietf-models-to-combined/draft_modules$ pyang -f
>     tree --ietf [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> >
>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     [e-mail]:1<mailto:[e-mail]:1>: warning: unexpected modulename
>     "ietf-rip" in [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, should be ietf-rip-nmda
>     [e-mail]:1<mailto:[e-mail]:1>: warning: unexpected latest revision
>     "2017-06-05" in [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, should be 2017-09-21
>     [e-mail]:740<mailto:[e-mail]:740>: error: unexpected keyword "type"
>     <- Means that config and state type differ.
>
>     [e-mail]:761<mailto:[e-mail]:761>: error: unexpected keyword "type"
>     <- Means that config and state type differ.
>
>     [e-mail]:818<mailto:[e-mail]:818>: error: there is already a child node
>     to "interface" at [e-mail]:636<mailto:[e-mail]:636> with the name
>     "originate-default-route" defined at [e-mail]:731<mailto:[e-mail]:731>
>     (at [e-mail]:141<mailto:[e-mail]:141>)
>     <- Trying to merge an "originate-default-route" leaf from the state tree
>     with the "originate-default-route" container in the equivalent config tree.
>
>     RIB YANG model converted to NMDA structure attached.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Rob
>
>
>     On 20/09/2017 18:27, Alia Atlas wrote:
>     > As is customary, I have done my AD review of
>     > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04. First, I would like to thank the
>     > authors, Xufeng, Prateek, and Vikram, as well as the WG for their work
>     > on this document.
>     >
>     > My one major issue is that this does not conform to the NMDA
>     > guidelines - where augmenting -state models is not preferred.  It is
>     > quite acceptable to have that in an appendix, if there are
>     > implementations. I do see the shepherd's write-up indicates a partial
>     > implementation exists.
>     > There is some tooling to help convert a model to conform to NMDA; I've
>     > cc'd Rob Wilton, who was working on that.
>     >
>     > I also have some questions.
>     >
>     > 1) For the prefix-set-ref, I don't see any information about what the
>     > string should contain.
>     >
>     > 2) For the route-policy-ref, I don't see any information about what
>     > the string should contain.
>     >
>     > Nits:
>     > a) p.26:"choice auth-type-selection {
>     >                  description
>     >                    "Specify the authentication scheme.
>     >                     The use of the key-chain reference here is
>     >                     designed to align with other proposed protocol
>     >                     models.";"
>     >    Since the key-chain model is approved for RFC publication, the
>     > description can be updated.
>     >
>     > Once the model conforms to the NMDA guidelines, I will be happy to
>     > advance this draft to IETF Last Call.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Alia
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtgwg mailing list
>     [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>