Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
Sent: 05 September 2020 21:55

Hi Tom,

On 9/4/20, 10:06 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>
    Sent: 03 September 2020 21:50

    RTGWG,

    An objection has been raised with respect to requesting publication of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model at this time.  The main concern expressed is that changes in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model may require changes in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.

    The main area of concern is the text in section 7 of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which illustrates how the current version of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model augments rpol:defined-sets, rpol:conditions, and rpol:actions with bp:bgp-defined-sets, bp:bgp-conditions, and bp:bgp-actions.

    I would like to suggest adding the following text to section 7 to make it clear that this text is not normative.

    =================
    The example below provides an illustration of how another data model can augment parts of this routing policy data model.
    It uses specific examples from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 to show in a concrete manner how the different pieces fit together.  This example is not normative with respect to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model.
    =================

    Would this text, or something similar, help to address this concern?

    <tp>
    mmm sounds like me:-)

    I misread it at first as saying that the BGP model is not a Normative module as opposed to this not being a  Normative Reference but have not got a better wording.#
    I would like something added about the prefix.  I commented on BGP that the prefix were not used consistently and were not a good choice in IMHO while the YANG doctor review suggests a major restructuring of BGP which could impact on the prefix.

<Acee>
The authors of ietf-routing-policy really don't have any control over the BGP submodule prefixes. We can't use a different prefix since the BGP modules import ietf-routing-policy - not vice-versa. That is why this section is non-normative.
<tp>
Of course we can use a different prefix. When bgp-model imports routing-policy, it does not use the prefix specified in routing-policy but creates its own - we could return the compliment:-)

And the definition of prefix in bgp-model is invalid, inconsistent and so has to change!

More seriously, bgp-model makes a poor choice of prefix IMHO and there is scope for routing-policy to do better while trying to persuade bgp-model to make a better choice.  Technically, a YANG import can use any prefix it likes although YANG Guidelines says that the proper module prefix MUST be used.  Given that this is not a YANG import, is not valid YANG, I think that we could have licence to define our own, such as bgp-pol or bgpp with a note to the effect that that is what has been done.  I think that a note that the prefix, whatever is chosen, refers to the module bgp-policy is needed to guide the reader.

Tom Petch

</Acee>


    I think that this module should spell out which BGP module it is referring to with this prefix and perhaps choose a prefix other than bp:  I think it should be bgp-... such as bgp-pol with all the BGP modules have prefixe bgp-... but that is of course for the IDR WG to decide.

<Acee>
I can add some text that provides the mapping of BGP submodules to the prefixes. However,  I can't just use a different prefix in the example. Would it help if we also moved the examples to appendices?

</Acee>

Thanks,
Acee

    Tom Petch

    Thanks,
    Chris

    On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:45 PM Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    RTGWG,

    This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.

    Please indicate support for, or opposition to, the publication of this
    document as Proposed Standard, along with the reasoning behind that support or
    opposition.

    Jeff Tantsura is a co-author of the document, so he won't be involved
    in judging consensus.

    IPR:

    If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
    this email stating 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 until a response has been received from each author and
    each individual that has contributed to the document.

    This WG last call will end on September 2, 2020.

    Thanks,

    Chris



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