Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:18:26 -0800

Dear RTGWG,

The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
as the working group documents.

The authors have addressed the comments raised.

Please indicate support or no-support by March 3rd, 2019.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please
respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of
any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG
mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage
until a response has been received from each author and each
individual that has contributed to the document.

Cheers,
Jeff

---

From: Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:20:13 +0000

Support as co-author. I’m not aware of any IPR.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:18 AM
To: RTGWG <[email-masked]>, Routing WG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 11:18 AM

Dear RTGWG,

Cheers,
Jeff

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:35:53 +0000

Acee

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM
To: Routing WG <[email-masked]>, Routing WG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>, Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:18 PM

Dear RTGWG,

Cheers,
Jeff

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:19:08 +0000

Support.

I think that it is important for IETF to continue to work towards 
complete YANG models for managing network devices, and I see this work 
as another part of that.

To the authors, please may I also suggest:
1) Referencing RFC 8340 for the tree diagram text in section 4. E.g. the 
current explanation text could be replaced with something like:

    The tree associated with the "ietf-rib-extensions" module follows.  The
    meaning of the symbols can be found in [RFC8340].

2) Perhaps adding the full tree output (i.e. inc the nodes from RFC8349) 
into an appendix.  As long as it is not too verbose, seeing the entire 
structure can be helpful for folks checking completeness, and for 
understanding the structure.

3) Adding some examples to the appendix.  No need to do every 
augmentation where the same groupings are being used, but seeing the 
output can greatly help the reader properly understand the structure and 
relationship between the data described in the model.

Thanks,
Rob

On 15/02/2019 19:18, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:00:19 +0000

Hi Rob,
I’ve taken all your comments. However, I’ve deferred adding the examples as this is best done with confd and I don’t have time to get that all setup right now.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:19 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>, Routing WG <[email-masked]>, Routing WG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" - draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>, Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:19 AM

Support.

I think that it is important for IETF to continue to work towards complete YANG models for managing network devices, and I see this work as another part of that.

To the authors, please may I also suggest:
1) Referencing RFC 8340 for the tree diagram text in section 4.  E.g. the current explanation text could be replaced with something like:

2) Perhaps adding the full tree output (i.e. inc the nodes from RFC8349) into an appendix.  As long as it is not too verbose, seeing the entire structure can be helpful for folks checking completeness, and for understanding the structure.

3) Adding some examples to the appendix.  No need to do every augmentation where the same groupings are being used, but seeing the output can greatly help the reader properly understand the structure and relationship between the data described in the model.

Thanks,
Rob

Cheers,
Jeff

rtgwg mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:26:39 +0000

Two uncertainties strike me.

One is terminology, which caused some discussion in the production of
the original YANG routing module.  When I see the terminology used, e.g.
admin distance, I immediately think of one manufacturer so I wonder how
other manufacturers see it and would like to see their agreement that
the terminology makes sense for them  (even if everyone here is of
course contributing as an individual).

More technically, I wonder at the specification of repair routes.  One
thought is placement, it is described as
         "Augment a route with a list of repair-paths.";
which is not strictly true since it augments
     augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"            + "rt:routes"
i.e. the container and not a route therein (which is the case for the
augmentation with a tag).  I am unsure where a list of repair routes
belongs in the schema - it seems to me that it could be anywhere.

Related to this, is there any requirement for repair routes to exist or
be valid i.e.is this missing a few 'must' or such like statements?

While I am at it, the reference in the YANG module to RFC8242 should be
RFC8342 IMHO.  And the YANG module is version 1.1 so the reference in
the Introduction must be RFC7950; I cannot understand this I-D using
only RFC6020.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email-masked]>
To: "RTGWG" <[email-masked]>; "Routing WG" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 7:18 PM
Subject: WG Adoption for "RIB YANG Data Model" -
draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend

> individual that has contributed to the document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:24:30 -0500

Yes/support.
Thanks,
- Xufeng