Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14.txt> (RIB Extension YANG Data Model) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my answers below inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:33 AM tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

>
> I thought that I had commented on this Last Call but perhaps not.
>
> The English is quirky, e.g. mixed singular and plural, missing definite
> and indefinite articles and such like but I do not think that that
> impairs my understanding.
>
> [Yingzhen]: Would you please provide some details? I expect the RFC editor
will fix English grammar issues if there are any.

> Contacts needs https:
>
[Yingzhen]: fixed.

> The examples use the line folding convention which needs a reference
> else our XML reviewers will complain
>
[Yingzhen]: Added a reference to RFC 8792.

What makes life more difficult is the terminology which I find
> inconsistent e.g. tag, route tag, administrative tag - are these the
> same or different? and if different, which is the YANG leaf tag?  RIP
> has a tag which I think different but perhaps confusing to those who are
> familiar with it.
>
[Yingzhen]:  There is no RFC for a RIB definition, and we picked commonly
used terms in the industry. when you say "RIP has a tag", do you mean the
RIP example in Appendix C in RFC 8349? If so, leaf "tag" applies to a route.

> The Introduction sounds very generic in its talk of routing protocols
> but I think that it promises more than it delivers; the YANG description
> seem to do the same in places. The reality is that in some places only
> static routes are augmented; what about dynamic routes?  And where they
> are augmented then I think that that needs calling out.  In a similar
> vein, I think the first paragraph of s.3 wrong.
>
> [Yingzhen]: Dynamic routes are augmented by routing protocol models, for
example, OSPF model (RFC 9129) has the following:

  augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route:

    +--ro metric?       uint32

    +--ro tag?          uint32
    +--ro route-type?   route-type

> 'The following tree snapshot' looks like an extract to me, not a snapshot.
>
[Yingzhen]: It's part of the entire tree. What do you suggest as the right
term?

> I have commented in the past about active route and I still find it
> tautological.
>
> Authors address gmail.com.com?
>
 [Yingzhen]: fixed.

Tom Petch
>
> On 17/04/2023 22:40, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
> > (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'RIB Extension YANG Data
> Model'
> >    <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final
> > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-05-01. Exceptionally, comments
> may
> > be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning
> > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >
> >     A 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.
> 1111111111111111>
> >
> >
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/
> >
> >
> >
> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtgwg mailing list
> > rtgwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> > .
> >
>