Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 02:47:46 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-08: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Looking at the YANG modules dependencies. See
https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=[email-masked]&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependencies

I would appreciate an update from the RTG ADs on these 3 normative references:

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang]
              Rahman, R., Zheng, L., Jethanandani, M., Networks, J., and
              G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
              Detection (BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07 (work in
              progress), October 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
              Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, Z., and L.
              Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS protocol", draft-ietf-
              isis-yang-isis-cfg-19 (work in progress), November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
              Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
              "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-ietf-ospf-
              yang-09 (work in progress), October 2017.

Any risk that the content will change and impact the YANG module in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip? All other YANG module dependencies are either on
this telechat or the next one (RFC8022bis).

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:07:22 -0500

Hi Benoit,

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.
> php?modules[]=[email-masked]&recurse=0&rfcs=1&
> show_subm=1&show_dir=dependencies
>

I don't believe that there is a risk.  The IS-IS and OSPF ones  are simply
because RIP can import routes from either.  I don't see any dependency on
how
those models are structured.    For BFD, the structure of that is set and
there was discussion during last call to make sure this was properly
aligned.

The OSPF and IS-IS models are both close, I believe.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:40:40 -0500

The BFD Yang module should be last called shortly.  A big piece of holding back last call there was dealing with interwork issues between the BFD module and users of it.  The RIP module just had the "benefit" of being the one that needed to help force this first. :-)

The current holdup is waiting for a few of the authors to finish holiday related travel and inbox cleanup.

-- Jeff (as BFD chair)

> On Jan 11, 2018, at 5:47 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg