Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

I just published version -08 and removed the sentence in the module
description and made a few editorial changes.

Thank you again for the review and please let us know if you have more
comments.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:10 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> See inline below.
>
> On 4/23/21, 3:19 AM, "Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Thank you for addressing my comments.  Pruning to the one remaining
>     question.
>
>
>     Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Hi Martin,
>     >
>     > Thank you for your review, and we've published version -07 to
> address your
>     > comments.
>     >
>     > Please see my answers below inline.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Yingzhen
>     >
>     > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:51 AM Martin Björklund via Datatracker <
>     > [e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     > > Reviewer: Martin Björklund
>     > > Review result: Ready with Nits
>     > >
>     > > Here is my YANG doctors review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06.
>     > > This is a well-written draft, and my comments are minor.
>
>     [...]
>
>     > > o  module description
>     > >
>     > >      This YANG module extends the generic data model for
>     > >      RIB by augmenting the ietf-routing model.  It is
>     > >      intended that the module will be extended by vendors
>     > >      to define vendor-specific RIB parameters.
>     > >
>     > >   I don't think I understand this description.  Here's my
> understanding,
>     > >   but I don't think it is correct:
>     > >
>     > >     1. This module extends the existing RIB data model by using
>     > >        augmentations.
>     > >     2. The existing RIB data model is defined in the YANG module
>     > >        ietf-routing.
>     > >     3. The purpose of this new module is to allow vendors to
> extend the
>     > >        the existing RIB data model with vendor-specific parameters.
>     > >
>     > >   It seems 3 is at least incomplete, since this module defines some
>     > >   additional config param for static routes, and addtional state
> and
>     > >   statistics for ribs.
>     > >
>     > >   It is not clear how vendors are expected to extend this model;
> the
>     > >   word "vendor" doesn't show up anywhere else.
>     > >
>     > > [Yingzhen]: This module does define additional parameters and is
>     > augmenting the existing RIB model. The module can be further
> augmented. Any
>     > suggestions for a replacement of "vendor-specific"?
>
>     All models can be augmented so I don't think this needs to be spelled
>     out.  When it is spelled out like this I expect some discussion about
>     how it differ from the "normal" augment that always can be done.
>
>     Some modules define some generic common structure, but are not
>     very useful unless they are augmented; they need to define how vendors
>     (or sdos) should extend the module.  However, I think that this module
>     is useful on its own, and thus I would remove the sentence "It is
>     intended ...".
>
> I'm not sure the source of this text but it has been almost boiler plate
> for protocol YANG models. Having said that, I don't have any problem
> removing it.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>     /martin
>
>