Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your review, really appreciate it. We've published version
-07 to address your comments, please see my detailed answers below inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:31 AM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 25 March 2021 23:05
> To: tom petch
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank you for the review and comments, really appreciate. Sorry for the
> delay of response.
>
> We’ve addressed your comments in the latest version, but forgot to reply
> to this email. We’d like to get this draft ready for WG LC, so please let
> us know if you have more comments.
>
> <tp>
> Returning after a break, I see different things!
>
> RIB is a contentious term which is why it gets defined  in RFC8349 and you
> rightly reference it in 2.1 but for me this makes Introduction para. 2
> wrong, confusing. I think you should remove that paragraph entirely or if
> you want to mention RIB then reference RFC8349.
>
> [Yingzhen]:  removed the paragraph, and changed to a reference to RFC 8349.


> Likewise route and path are contentious and need using carefully; see below
>
> RIB needs a preceding article which you have added in some places but not
> all.  I think that it mostly should be 'the RIB'
>


>
> 3.1 RIB tags
> um no, route tags
>

[Yingzhen]: I changed the section title to just "Tags and Preference", so
it's more consistent with other section titles.

4
> augment with a long path can be hard to decipher,  Here and in the YANG
> module a comment line before it makes it much easier e.g.
>
> /*augment static IPv4 unicast next hop list*/
> Other WG do this and I find it helpful.  Yes the YANG description says
> much the same thing but that comes after the augment which is too late.
>
> active route
> I think needs a definition
>
> [Yingzhen]: added description


> total-route-memory
> lacks units Gbyte?
>
> [Yingzhen]: thank you for catching this. fixed.


> grouping attributes
>  applicable to all paths
> routes I think as that is what the descriptions say
>
> [Yingzhen]: fixed.


> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> > On Jun 29, 2020, at 9:08 AM, t petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that this I-D needs a few tweaks.
> >
> > 'RIB'  'a RIB '' the RIB' all appear and I like consistency; since boxes
> > can have multiple RIBs, I suspect 'a RIB' is best.
> >
> > 'route' v 'path' - RFC8349 consciously decided that path did not mean
> > much and so the term does not appear; here 'path' seems to used without
> > a clear differentation from 'route'
> >
> > s.3.2 'Ipv4'
> >
> > s3.3 'operational state'
> > should this be an NMDA datastore?
> >
> > s.5
> > 'import' statements need 'reference' clauses, all of them
> >
> >          Datastore Architecture (NDMA) as described in RFC 8242.
> > perhaps 8342
> >
> >           leaf total-active-routes {
> > what is an active route? what criterion can be applied to pick them out
> > of a RIB?
> >
> >             "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate ...
> > /associate/associated/
> >
> > Not sure but
> > OLD
> >             "The application-specific tag is an additional tag that
> >              can be used applications that require semantics and/or
> >              policy different from that of the tag. For example,
> >              the tag is usually automatically advertised in OSPF
> >              AS-External Link State Advertisements (LSAs) while this
> >              application-specific tag is not advertised implicitly.";
> > NEW
> >             "The application tag is an additional tag that
> >              can be used by applications that require semantics and/or
> >              policy different from that of the tag. For example,
> >              the tag is usually advertised in OSPF
> >              AS-External Link State Advertisements (LSAs) while this
> >              application tag is not advertised";
> > 'implicitly' does not make sense to me and the juxtaposition of 'tag'
> > and 'application tag' may confuse and using 'tag' in so many other
> > places may confuse more; time for a typedef? (tag also appears already
> > in RFC8349 but not, sadly, in RFC8294)
> >
> > MULTI seems to have lost an I
> >
> > OSPF. ECMP could do with references
> >
> >
> > s.7
> > "      name: ietf-acl namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-
> >        extension prefix: ietf-rib-ext reference: RFC XXXX "
> >
> > oh dear
> >
> > Appendix B should use documentation addresses not 10.  192.1.
> >
> > The IESG have been known to reject examples that do not include some
> > IPv6
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <[e-mail]>
> >> To: <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:12 PM
> >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt
> >>
> >>
> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >> directories.
> >>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the
> >> IETF.
> >>>
> >>>         Title           : RIB YANG Data Model
> >>>         Authors         : Acee Lindem
> >>>                           Yingzhen Qu
> >>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt
> >>>         Pages           : 22
> >>>         Date            : 2020-06-25
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>>    The Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their
> >>>    corresponding administrative data and operational state.
> >>>
> >>>    RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model
> >>>    augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each
> >> route
> >>>    as well as additional attributes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >>>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=T3%2BMwjOJoWg4etTems7m%2FDZS83txUza7BUnnMKp1GWc%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> >>>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=DSeJQizkNOW4EtedOp5rlgpLX%2FfNu1FMmCTRdP2nDj0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>
> >>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-0&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=B7bKkS%2By8nI8wUtdVbVxnow1DExp7t23fLisKZuzbjs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> 4
> >>>
> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >>>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=YH0y0nObOvIqm2Fq3F3Nylu0E6yN6awmOXJk4FARTAs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >> submission
> >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >>>
> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >>>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.ietf.org%2Finternet-drafts%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=fFX2a60GDIdTaGDqL1ajT7th6um5EdGtTjUqZoQiJPk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> I-D-Announce mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi-d-announce&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=PQj%2BvpGuhu52qgVaEUrTB99mPoC4kJ6tatl7xL4OiP0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>> Internet-Draft directories:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fshadow.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=uP51%2BFhmIvplhQ9LO8cEhMm5o1uAmHPvmQDEoKty9wk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>> or
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.ietf.org%2Fietf%2F1shadow-sites.txt&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=k56QAmN7ER%2BzVdSFXPtcVCW0C7lIB4hRvrIdTk9o1bY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Ca45d1006ab5f472f2ea508d81c46d0b5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637290437767295887&amp;sdata=8XOOsqngl%2FpA3jOwSSdHFpCfvXwUb%2BESv7EK4%2ByG7dA%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>