Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 05:01:27 -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 WG of the IETF.

        Title           : RIB YANG Data Model
        Authors         : Acee Lindem
                          Yingzhen Qu
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2019-03-10

Abstract:
   The Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their
   corresponding administrative data and operational state.

   RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model
   augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each route
   as well as additional attributes.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01

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: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:41:39 +0000

I am much confused by the terminology in this I-D with its use of the
undefined term 'path'.

It augments RFC8349, which carefully avoids the used of the term 'path'
because there was no agreement as to what it means, if indeed it has any
value; rather, that I-D manages with 'next hop' and 'route' so if 'path'
has any meaning, then it needs to be defined.  True the I-D says
"multiple next-hops (aka, paths) "
but that again suggests to me that the term has no value.

It is unfortunate that the literature of IPFRR talks of 'repair path'
and IPFRR is part of this I-D so perhaps we have to put up with 'repair
path'.  Thus I find:

   A repair path is augmented in RIB operation state for each path.

'repair path' might be a useful term but the reference to 'each path'
conveys nothing to me; route? next-hop?

     grouping attributes { description
         "Common attributes applicable to all paths";
       leaf metric { ...
         description "Route metric";       }
       leaf tag { ...
         description "Route tag";

so path attributes are route metric and route tag (nothing to do with
path)

         "Augment a route with a list of repair-paths.";
       list repair-route {

Ah, so a repair path is really a repair route - not helpful

augment ..."rt:simple-next-hop"
     { description
         "Add more parameters to a path.";
so a path is  next hop

So, ditch the term 'path' and the I-D would be much clearer to me.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 12:01 PM

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-0
1
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt