Subject: submission of I-D draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:04:20 -0700

Dear co-authors,

Please fix YANG validation errors and re-submit.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 14:54, IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The IETF datatracker draft submission service has received your draft
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-11, and requires a
> confirmation step in order to be able to complete the posting of
> the draft.
> Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the posting:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/106193/confirm/a680bfc6b2d12cd346dac00b89b0daa2/
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>    The IETF Secretariat
>    through the draft submission service
> 
>

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:55:42 -0400

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for checking on this. The YANG validation errors reported on the
IETF web site are caused by the tooling, which could not find proper
modules in its test area. I have run the validation for this model and have
found no such errors.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:04 AM Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:33:24 +0000

and while you are at it;

RFC2119 boiler plate is out of date.

no note to RFC Editor asking them to replace the dates in the YANG
module

YANG module woefully short of references - about 15 needed; this to me
is a show stopper, i.e. puts me off a more detailed review

curious use of identities for RIP - most protocols have a base identity
for any flavour of the protocol and then derive further identities for
particular versions

in light of which, the introduction leaves me uncertain about support
for RIP v1

curious use of derived-from-or-self in many places - if the condition is
for e.g. ripng, then why not a simple equality?

/cooresponding /corresponding/

for IANA considerations RFC7950 is not a good reference since all it
says is go read RFC6020

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:04 AM

> > Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the
posting:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/106193/confirm/a680bfc6b2d12c
d346dac00b89b0daa2/