Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-19: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Acee

On 24/05/2023, 22:48, "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


HI Éric, 


Thanks for the review. 


> On May 24, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-19: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education).
> 
> Special thanks to Jeff Tantsura for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
> the WG consensus **but** it lacks the justification of the intended status.
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> # COMMENTS
> 
> ## Abstract
> 
> Should "data model" appear in `RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for
> RIB` ?


I’ve updated this. 




> 
> ## Section 3.2
> 
> Isn't the use of inet:ip-address (i.e., including the zone) redundant with
> outgoing-interface ? Strongly suggest using inet:ip-address-no-zone


While I consider not fixing the ip-address definition to NOT include the zone in the RFC6991BIS draft a complete and total failure of the NETMOD WG, I decided to put this in the category of “accept the things I cannot change”. It’s a shame that a vocal editor/minority prevented the WG from admitting that this was wrong and fixing the definitions to match the ubiquitous IPv4 and IPv6 address representations with the types including the zone as the outliers. 


I’ve made the updates in the -20 version.


Thanks,
Acee




> 
> 
>