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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom, 

On 9/16/20, 6:01 AM, "tom petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
    Sent: 15 September 2020 21:37

    Hi Tom, Chris, et al,
    I've moved the non-normative sections to appendixes in the -22 version. Also, at the risk of being redundant, I included an explicit reference for the unpopular BGP sub-module prefixes.

    <tp>
    Looks good.

    Every time I read this, I see something:-(  So some trivia for as and when a new version is needed:

    container prefixes has 'is is'
<acee>
Fixed in -22.  
</acee>

    container conditions /returns control the/returns control to the/
<acee>
Fixed in -22
</acee>

    and
    should or SHOULD? (an AD is bound to ask if we meant this:-)

<acee>
I think it should... Started a thread on this amongst YANG doctors. There is no consistency in published models on "description" statement validation. However, in times we've discussed this on the NETMOD list, these descriptions are normative. 
</acee>

    'chain' is probably worth expanding on.  It appears in 4.4 and is relied on in s.5 without ever a formal definition and it might not be obvious how it is represented in the YANG model. I infer that it is the leaf-list import-policy or export-policy but chain does not appear in the descriptions thereof.  So I think a sentence in 4.4 saying what a chain looks like as YANG would help as would a mention of chain alongside list in the description of export-policy and import-policy.  If my inference is wrong, then please tell me what a chain is!

<acee>
Good catch. I think the problem here is that "policy chain" is used for both the list of import or export policies and the list of statement within a called policy. This is clearly wrong and policy chain should only be used for the former.  Let me assure my co-authors agree.  

Thanks,
Acee
</acee>

Thanks,
Acee

    Tom Petch

    Thanks
    Acee

    On 9/10/20, 6:10 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail] on behalf of acee=[e-mail]> wrote:

        Hi Tom,

        As previously noted, the BGP model augments the routing-policy model and not the other way around. Hence, resolution of BGP model issues is not a prerequisite for publication of this YANG model. AFAIK, none of the open issues with the BGP model are related to its augmentation of the routing-policy model.


        Now, I'd like to see the BGP model issues addressed and the model progress as much as you but there is absolutely nothing unusual regarding its treatment.

        Thanks,
        Acee

        On 9/10/20, 11:44 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

            From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>
            Sent: 09 September 2020 21:07

            RTGWG,

            I think there is rough WG consensus to submit draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model to the IESG for publication.  I will include a description of the discussion related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model in the shepherd writeup.  It will likely take the IESG several months to publish draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.  If there are changes in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model that make it desirable to change the text of the example in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model before publication, then any changes in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model will be discussed within RTGWG.

            <tp>
            Chris
            The other thought that I had was that the treatment of bgp-model, which I would regard as unusual, might attract some interesting comment from such as Genart or Opsdir reviews so it might be valuable to get those done earlier rather than later.

            Tom Petch

            Thanks,
            Chris


            _______________________________________________
            rtgwg mailing list
            [e-mail]
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

        _______________________________________________
        rtgwg mailing list
        [e-mail]
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg