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

["Jeffrey \(Zhaohui\) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Yingzhen,

 

From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; rtgwg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

 

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

 

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."

 

Zzh> Good.

 

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? 

 

Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a static route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1 is down).

 

Zzh> Jeffrey

Juniper Business Use Only

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