AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 20 September 2017 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44C0133052; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id meFRAloec0jR; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F39132D51; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l39so2744177wrl.12; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L1vJHA6WSfd6IZQbLqROrIbL+Ca7yLcoUQqqbuRS6AI=; b=Juc4hJ2Gd3H8XLRIEHP5oKtskfy6uV7EyE/RpBrtDcsr86XLmA7nXvzKe+svy80GQf A+n96FJ7C9xqtikc7KFzG8H5S8xctfUoAllNOLThfahv9dkoC49XPYhVj23JCzpe1dqn dk1TtAk5Vn0yL/uLEw9CqVxbrsUfK+3jYQ2oYfBJTuJ27I1RhrGN/xUNusvt0r+a7nVO WTnHyjPaxSkzJf5DJwQxr9B/KUgsGkiUw8hCmlM/8TnfV3zm/SnQ/+dz4+cBKi8oJr4M QESot62+DiUn0b5EMLZ06OeCJ6D88z1KQ7QPSWGKjFbhzMQ4KkDRA4gq/GOhMLcXmmH2 YfOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L1vJHA6WSfd6IZQbLqROrIbL+Ca7yLcoUQqqbuRS6AI=; b=RByKTay20mUMw5ZyF8sA08tgvARfgAPSupvaCVq5M8dBbT5UUHr9Gjc+CYxBPljXEd z2AC/0oPR8rUyp/2/WaCgXikAq8u+NOFHMNZu2gsH+SnTws9Jim3Li2NBHdWOhSFSwuK qUa/QuuZQM1aoFP9vofU/ttFJ2DOTcESEANKg5lM1ljM4hRnrJCab/VYyLFiuoZPxAcY EKGpZSnSZCVpQVloOJKDmN7ysZze8uwHON4TEbz1T6s5DEA0HO+zWB+QK3KSwy+n6SZm UxbcyZUwKLhwA0p8mj0qKrq3q43JVtntPdFdHmsv4jIveJFmEpM9sMdyvZoGP1Pmz932 RiDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgzxlAZL37aCzoXABR5BqfHCx68g5cU4rQpifgr1r4e/rA/Eos/ i6mbr3iBriWBKpN7ppXQX7LcWISNVx1Bo2dlMohZV1Hv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDu+x2IpoFqDA0KsWSBI1/UgDIEBfkYl0WXdtMUgtEjaQuywkI2vX/cGJJ4QuAiQ8AMxbQZEMqAtZSUuxY++A0=
X-Received: by 10.223.147.195 with SMTP id 61mr2701484wrp.119.1505928430331; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.136.153 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:27:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfam+mm3uL3-txN90JCzf8MQrxs4xa-ebdJ1tNbsMbEKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0da5e825c8bc0559a24989"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/aPMLPu_KKirMfDvwom1Mj6CD_ho>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:27:14 -0000

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04.
First, I would like to thank the authors, Xufeng, Prateek, and Vikram, as
well as the WG for their work on this document.

My one major issue is that this does not conform to the NMDA guidelines -
where augmenting -state models is not preferred.  It is quite acceptable to
have that in an appendix, if there are implementations. I do see the
shepherd's write-up indicates a partial implementation exists.
There is some tooling to help convert a model to conform to NMDA; I've cc'd
Rob Wilton, who was working on that.

I also have some questions.

1) For the prefix-set-ref, I don't see any information about what the
string should contain.

2) For the route-policy-ref, I don't see any information about what the
string should contain.

Nits:
a) p.26:"choice auth-type-selection {
                 description
                   "Specify the authentication scheme.
                    The use of the key-chain reference here is
                    designed to align with other proposed protocol
                    models.";"
   Since the key-chain model is approved for RFC publication, the
description can be updated.

Once the model conforms to the NMDA guidelines, I will be happy to advance
this draft to IETF Last Call.

Thanks,
Alia