Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

[Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>]

 RTGWG,

An objection has been raised with respect to requesting publication of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model at this time.  The main concern expressed is
that changes in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model may require changes in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.

The main area of concern is the text in section 7 of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which illustrates how the current version of
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model augments rpol:defined-sets, rpol:conditions, and
rpol:actions with bp:bgp-defined-sets, bp:bgp-conditions, and
bp:bgp-actions.

I would like to suggest adding the following text to section 7 to make it
clear that this text is not normative.

=================
The example below provides an illustration of how another data model can
augment parts of this routing policy data model.
It uses specific examples from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 to show in a
concrete manner how the different pieces fit together.  This example is not
normative with respect to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model.
=================

Would this text, or something similar, help to address this concern?

Thanks,
Chris

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:45 PM Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> RTGWG,
>
> This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.
>
> Please indicate support for, or opposition to, the publication of this
> document as Proposed Standard, along with the reasoning behind that support or
> opposition.
>
> Jeff Tantsura is a co-author of the document, so he won't be involved
> in judging consensus.
>
> IPR:
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
> this email stating 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 until a response has been received from each author and
> each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
> This WG last call will end on September 2, 2020.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>