Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 06:57:27 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I really admire the 4 authors
managing to reach a consensus even while having different affiliations: IETF at
its best!

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2 --
Having "Policy chain: A policy chain is a sequence of policy definitions
(described in Section 4)." in the terminology section does not really help the
reader...

-- Section 4.1 --
While I am not a YANG expert, I wonder about the "*" (usually meaning 0 or
more) for address in the neighbor-set container ? How can a neighbor exist w/o
an address ? Why not using the "min-elements' YANG statement ?

---

From: Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:45:46 -0700

Hi Eric,

Thank you for your review and comments, please see my answers inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

> On Aug 11, 2021, at 6:57 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> reader…
[Yingzhen]: The language here is not clear. It means that policy definitions are descried in Section 4. I’ll remove “(described in Section 4)" in the next version.
> an address ? Why not using the "min-elements' YANG statement ?
[Yingzhen]: neighbor-set allows you to define a list of neighbor-set keyed by “name”. In each neighbor-set, besides name, there is a list of address. We didn’t add the “min-elements” statement because this allows to create an “empty” neighbor-set. I understand it’s not really useful when being referenced, but might be convenient during configuration.

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 05:32:29 +0000

Yingzhen

Thank you for your reply: we are all set

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:46
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>
Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, rtgwg-chairs <[email-masked]>, routing WG <[email-masked]>, Chris Bowers <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Eric,

    Thanks,
    Yingzhen