Re: [Last-Call] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 <noreply@xxxxxxxx> 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."

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? 
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux