Hi Yingzhen,
I can go with that if that’s what the authors/WG’s preference, but my preference would be to cover it in the base specification itself. What’s the harm?
Anyway, this is not a blocking comment.
Thanks.
Jeffrey
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:01 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,
Considering this is not commonly used, I'd suggest if someone really needs it they can do an easy augmentation using the grouping defined in this draft.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Juniper Business Use Only
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
