Hi Yingzhen, Yes. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Yingzhen Qu [mailto:yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:55 PM > To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@xxxxxxxxx>; tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip@xxxxxxxx; rtgwg-chairs@xxxxxxxx; > akatlas@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> (A YANG Data Model > for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard > > Hi Xufeng, > > Thanks for the update. > > Adam has comments about the description of address and Benoit has some nits > comments, are you going to address those soon? > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On 1/12/18, 12:18 PM, "Xufeng Liu" <Xufeng_Liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for your valuable comments. We have updated the document with > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-08, to address these > comments. > > Regards, > - Xufeng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tom p. [mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:13 PM > > To: tom p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip@xxxxxxxx; rtgwg-chairs@xxxxxxxx; > > yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxx; akatlas@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.txt> (A YANG Data > Model > > for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard > > > > > > > > I think that this I-D falls somewhat short of the standard necessary for > > advancement. > > > > 'reference' statements are almost wholy lacking from the YANG module and > > while it might be reasonable to expect the reader to know where to find > > information on RIP or RIPng, I do not think that that extends to other IGP or > > IPsec. If you want to see how it SHOULD be done, look at > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01 > > One or more 'reference' statement per 'container' or'leaf' statement is a > good > > starting point. > [Xufeng] The situation is different from RFC7277, where attributes from > different referenced documents are put together in a same container. In the RIP > model, almost all attributes refer to the same three documents RFC2453, > RFC2080, and RFC1724. If we add them to each container or leaf, we'd have to > repeat these three everywhere. Therefore we put the references at the > beginning to avoid the repetition. In case when some specific reference is > needed, such as authentication, we add the reference to RFC8177 in that > container. Is this ok? > > > > > Talking of which, > > [I-D.bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis] > > [I-D.bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis] > > [I-D.acee-netmod-rfc8022bis] > > have all been replaced. I am unclear whether or not this invalidates the > > announcement, since these appeared in the announcement as downrefs. > [Xufeng] Updated in the new version. > > > > Common (best) practice is to then include all the references from the YANG > > module in a separate section immediately prior to the module itself so that > the > > reader can readily find them. > > Again > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01 > > Section 4 is an example of how to do this. > [Xufeng] We use Sec 1.3 for this purpose. > > > > The YANG module does reference > > RFC 1724 > > but I think that that makes it Normative not Informative, as it currently is. > [Xufeng] Changed it to normative as you suggested. > > > > The Abstract is limp. > > "This document describes a data model for the Routing Information > > Protocol (RIP). " > > So what?. This should tell me what I can do, e.g. configure, manage, get > > statistics or what? > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01 > > gives a better example. At this point in time, with NMDA causing significant > > changes, the Abstract would do well to mention where the I-D stands with > > regard to this. > [Xufeng] Updated with more information as you suggested. > > > > There is now an emerging RFC on tree diagrams > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-03 > > The authors might consider using and referencing this. > [Xufeng] New version references the latest draft now. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:29 PM > > > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group > > WG > > > > (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for > > > Routing > > > > Information Protocol (RIP)' > > > > <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06.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 > > > > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-12-12. 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > This document describes a data model for the Routing Information > > > > Protocol (RIP). Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are covered. > > > > > > > > >