Hi Tom,
Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my answers below inline.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:33 AM tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought that I had commented on this Last Call but perhaps not.
The English is quirky, e.g. mixed singular and plural, missing definite
and indefinite articles and such like but I do not think that that
impairs my understanding.
[Yingzhen]: Would you please provide some details? I expect the RFC editor will fix English grammar issues if there are any.
Contacts needs https:
[Yingzhen]: fixed.
The examples use the line folding convention which needs a reference
else our XML reviewers will complain
[Yingzhen]: Added a reference to RFC 8792.
What makes life more difficult is the terminology which I find
inconsistent e.g. tag, route tag, administrative tag - are these the
same or different? and if different, which is the YANG leaf tag? RIP
has a tag which I think different but perhaps confusing to those who are
familiar with it.
[Yingzhen]: There is no RFC for a RIB definition, and we picked commonly used terms in the industry. when you say "RIP has a tag", do you mean the RIP example in Appendix C in RFC 8349? If so, leaf "tag" applies to a route.
The Introduction sounds very generic in its talk of routing protocols
but I think that it promises more than it delivers; the YANG description
seem to do the same in places. The reality is that in some places only
static routes are augmented; what about dynamic routes? And where they
are augmented then I think that that needs calling out. In a similar
vein, I think the first paragraph of s.3 wrong.
[Yingzhen]: Dynamic routes are augmented by routing protocol models, for example, OSPF model (RFC 9129) has the following:
augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route:
+--ro metric? uint32
+--ro tag? uint32
+--ro route-type? route-type
'The following tree snapshot' looks like an extract to me, not a snapshot.
[Yingzhen]: It's part of the entire tree. What do you suggest as the right term?
I have commented in the past about active route and I still find it
tautological.
Authors address gmail.com.com?
[Yingzhen]: fixed.
Tom Petch
On 17/04/2023 22:40, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
> (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'RIB Extension YANG Data Model'
> <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2023-05-01. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> A Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their
> corresponding administrative data and operational state.
>
> RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model
> augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each route
> as well as additional attributes.
1111111111111111>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/
>
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> .
>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
