Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Two uncertainties strike me.

One is terminology, which caused some discussion in the production of
the original YANG routing module.  When I see the terminology used, e.g.
admin distance, I immediately think of one manufacturer so I wonder how
other manufacturers see it and would like to see their agreement that
the terminology makes sense for them  (even if everyone here is of
course contributing as an individual).

More technically, I wonder at the specification of repair routes.  One
thought is placement, it is described as
         "Augment a route with a list of repair-paths.";
which is not strictly true since it augments
     augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"            + "rt:routes"
i.e. the container and not a route therein (which is the case for the
augmentation with a tag).  I am unsure where a list of repair routes
belongs in the schema - it seems to me that it could be anywhere.

Related to this, is there any requirement for repair routes to exist or
be valid i.e.is this missing a few 'must' or such like statements?

While I am at it, the reference in the YANG module to RFC8242 should be
RFC8342 IMHO.  And the YANG module is version 1.1 so the reference in
the Introduction must be RFC7950; I cannot understand this I-D using
only RFC6020.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[e-mail]>
To: "RTGWG" <[e-mail]>; "Routing WG" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 7:18 PM
Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" -
draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend


> Dear RTGWG,
>
> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt
draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
> as the working group documents.
>
> The authors have addressed the comments raised.
>
> Please indicate support or no-support by March 3rd, 2019.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please
> respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of
> any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG
> mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage
> until a response has been received from each author and each
> individual that has contributed to the document.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


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