Re: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-13

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

I have some doubts about this I-D

-01 had four authors; -13 has four authors.  None are the same yet much
of the text in the I-D is the same.

NSSA could be added to the Terminology and/or expanded on first use.

Policy subroutines sound interesting - if there is one example I would
find useful it would be one involving subroutines.

10 YANG modules
I only see one singular

XXXX is used as a placeholder for two different I-D

I like the reference to RFC2178, RFC5130 but they need to appear in the
I-D References and more YANG reference clauses would not come amiss

       typedef metric-modification-type {
....
                   If the result would exceed the maximum metric
                (0xffffffff), set the metric to the maximum.";
OSPF has a 16 bit link metric, a 24 bit route metric as defined in
ospg-yang.  Defining a maximum of 0xffffffff seems problematic. Add two
to 16777215 and you get one.
The other LSR protocol has a 6 or 24 or 32 bit metric depending on where
you look.

             "The prefix member in CIDR notation -- "
member of what?  My prefix are a number!

         leaf mask-length-upper {
the example implies that upper and lower must both be present which I do
not see in the YANG.  Both upper and lower are part of the YANG key of
the list which also suggests that both need to be present

       grouping match-proto-route-type-condition {
gets a bit long; here and elsewhere, is 'proto' needed as part of the
identifiers?

           container prefix-sets {
               leaf mode {
I am not a fan of features - Cartesian explosion - but wonder if one is
called for here at least for mixed mode

Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>