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

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

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
>