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

Thanks Rob!

Dear authors,
please publish the updated draft ASAP.

Thanks! 
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 08:01
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04

    So the conversion tool has worked OK on the RIP model as well, but I 
    spotted a few areas where manual conversion is required (because the 
    types/structure between config and state differ):

    So along with the revision date, and a few FIX ME comments, the 
    following few places also need to be manually tweaked/fixed:

    rwilton@rwilton-lnx:~/ietf-models-to-combined/draft_modules$ pyang -f 
    tree --ietf ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang > 
    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.tree.txt
    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:1: warning: unexpected modulename 
    "ietf-rip" in ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang, should be ietf-rip-nmda
    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:1: warning: unexpected latest revision 
    "2017-06-05" in ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang, should be 2017-09-21
    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:740: error: unexpected keyword "type"
    <- Means that config and state type differ.

    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:761: error: unexpected keyword "type"
    <- Means that config and state type differ.

    ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:818: error: there is already a child node 
    to "interface" at ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:636 with the name 
    "originate-default-route" defined at ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:731 
    (at ietf-rip-nmda@2017-09-21.yang:141)
    <- Trying to merge an "originate-default-route" leaf from the state tree 
    with the "originate-default-route" container in the equivalent config tree.

    RIB YANG model converted to NMDA structure attached.

    Thanks,
    Rob

    On 20/09/2017 18:27, Alia Atlas wrote:
    > 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

    _______________________________________________
    rtgwg mailing list
    rtgwg@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg