Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeffrey,

I've submitted version -17 and updated the description.

For the static routes, I'm leaving as it is unless we receive more feedback
asking for augmentation of repair-path.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:05 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Yingzhen,
>
>
>
> I can go with that if that’s what the authors/WG’s preference, but my
> preference would be to cover it in the base specification itself. What’s
> the harm?
>
>
>
> Anyway, this is not a blocking comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey
>
>
>
> *From:* Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2023 5:01 PM
> *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Rtgdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
>
>
> Considering this is not commonly used, I'd suggest if someone really needs
> it they can do an easy augmentation using the grouping defined in this
> draft.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Yingzhen,
>
>
>
> *From:* Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM
> *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Rtgdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the review, please see my answers below.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:43 AM Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I have the following one nit comment and one question:
>
>   augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
>     + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
>     + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop"
>   {
>     description
>       "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path.";
>     uses repair-path;
>   }
>
> The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single next-hop
> in
> the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops".
>
> [Yingzhen] how about: "Augment the next-hop with a repair path."
>
>
>
> Zzh> Good.
>
>
>
> Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well?
>
> [Yingzhen]: Theoretically you can have a repair-path for a static route,
> but have you seen this in deployment?
>
>
>
> Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite
> reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a
> static route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1
> is down).
>
>
>
> Zzh> Jeffrey
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>