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
