This didn't have a chance to be updated before the cutoff, so technically it's still "Ready with Issues", but I am completely happy with Lada's proposed changes.
Regards Brian On 25/10/2016 20:56, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi Brian, > > thank you for the review. Please see my replies inline. > >> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2016-10-25 >> IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-03 >> IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03 >> >> Summary: Ready with (minor) issues >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This seems to be a fine document. FYI I am not a YANG expert. >> >> There is a dissent on a point of principle in the WG archive at >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html: >> "Given the historical opposition to revising models once they have been cast >> as RFCs >> that we have seen within the IETF, then I feel that avoiding incomplete >> models going >> to RFC is the best course of action." >> >> My understanding is that YANG models are intrinsically extensible, and this >> is >> noted in the Abstract and Introduction. So I don't find this dissent >> compelling. > > Indeed, this data model is intended as a basis for other models, e.g. for > routing protocols. Several such model are already under way. > >> >> Minor Issues: >> ------------- >> >> 1) >> Re on-link-flag and autonomous-flag: Please consider adding a normative >> reference to the approved RFC-to-be draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host, >> as well as RFC 4861. That document specifies that having both these flags >> set to False is a legitimate combination, against current expectations. > > Will add. > >> >> 2) >> Did you consider doing anything explicit for ULA prefixes, or would >> this just be handled by special-next-hop/prohibit in border routers? > > > The "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" submodule just tries to cover the > parameters specified in RFC 4861. I understand that configuration specific to > ULA prefixes is an add-on to this base set, and this can be implemented via > augmenting the core model from other modules. > >> >> 3) >>> Appendix B. Minimum Implementation >>> >>> Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user- >>> defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers. This appendix >>> gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum >>> of available functions. Such an implementation may be used for hosts >>> or very simple routers. >> >> IPv6 hosts should definitely not send RFC4861 router advertisements. >> Should that be stated in this appendix? > > Yes, good point, will do. > > Thanks, Lada > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
