Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:47:24 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Routing Area Common YANG Data Types
        Authors         : Xufeng Liu
                          Yingzhen Qu
                          Acee Lindem
                          Christian Hopps
                          Lou Berger
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-03.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2017-05-10

Abstract:
   This document defines a collection of common data types using the
   YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed
   to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-03
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:54:56 +0000

This version addresses Stewart’s RTG Directorate comments and Radek’s YANG
Doctor comments. It also splits iana-routing-types into a separate module.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 5/10/17, 5:47 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of [email-masked]"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:06:43 +0100

Acee

I don't understand what you are doing.

Martin suggested
"                                       Since it is based on an IANA
registry,
>should it be in a separate IANA-maintained module, like iana-if-type
>in RFC 7224?"

but you have not done that.  You have produced a separate module in
which IANA appears hundreds of times but that does not make it an
IANA-maintained module IMO.  Look at RFC7224 s.3 to see what I think is
missing.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:32:16 +0000

Hi Tom, 
I realized that IANA text similar to RFC 7224 will be required before
publishing the model. However, I was pressed for time and wanted to assure
people agreed with the structure before adding it.

A bigger question is whether IANA has the bandwidth to maintain an
increasing number of YANG models. Direct correlation to a registry would
be facilitated by the decoupling of IETF YANG models from the RFC process
(an ongoing discussion).

Thanks,
Acee