Thanks Suresh, Martin and Sue, The issues will be addressed in verion-11.
Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:08 PM > To: 'Martin Bjorklund' <m...@tail-f.com> > Cc: sur...@kaloom.com; i...@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data- > mo...@ietf.org; i2rs-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Martin: > > Thank you for the proactive response on the types. I'll work with the > authors to change to these standard types. > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:06 AM > To: sha...@ndzh.com > Cc: sur...@kaloom.com; i...@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data- > mo...@ietf.org; i2rs-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi, > > There are standard types for IPv6 flow label and for MAC addresses defined in > RFC 6991: > > inet:ipv6-flow-label > yang:mac-address > > > /martin > > > "Susan Hares" <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote: > > Suresh: > > > > Thank you for catching these issues. I missed these as a Shepherd (as > did > > the other reviewers) and AD. See my answers below. > > > > Would you or Martin hold a discuss until these critical issues are > > resolved and checked with the YANG doctors? I will work with the > > authors > to resolve > > these issues. This revision will take some time as we seek advice from > the > > YANG doctors and from the community on the IEEE MAC Address being an > > index or a full MAC Address. > > > > Susan Hares > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > > Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 12:39 AM > > To: The IESG > > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org; > > i2rs-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com > > Subject: [i2rs] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: Discuss > > > > 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-i2rs-rib-data-model/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This model tries to squeeze the 20 bit IPv6 flow label into a 16 bit > field. > > This will result in a loss of data and needs to be fixed before the > > document is published. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > * Section 3 > > > > => Under > > > > identity ipv6-decapsulation { > > > > it looks like the description is wrong ("IPv4 tunnel decapsulation.") > > ---- > > You are correct. It will be replaced with the following ========= > > identity ipv6-decapsulation { > > base "tunnel-decapsulation-action"; > > description > > "IPv6 tunnel decapsulation."; > > } > > > > => What use case is the ttl-action decrease-and-copy-to-inner used for? > > ---- > > Good catch! > > This feature may be used for tunnels (7.2.1 of > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model) or nexthops chains (section 7.2.5 of > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model). Good catch in that it does not provide > > enough detail in this version. > > > > We've had comments over the last years to put this level of detail in > > or out of the YANG model. I believe the latest wisdom from > > NETMOD/NETCONF is to put the level of detail back in > > > > => Under case egress-interface-mac-nexthop { > > > > It is not clear to me how you fit a MAC address into a 32 bit space > > ,or am > I > > misreading this somehow and this is some form of index? > > > > Good Catch. > > > > Early on it was a holding place for a the official IEEE:MAC table, and > > should have been transferred to either the IEEE:MAC-ADDRESS (see page > > 17 RIB-INFO draft). However, this definitely needs to get fixed. I > > need to check with the YANG Doctors to determine which is the > > preferred fix for this reference at this time. I'm sure implementers > > have been using a fully qualified IEEE_MAC_ADDRESS or a reference to > > the > Table. > > > > High level - case points to an outgoing interface, ieee-mac address - > > > > case egress-interface-mac-nexthop { > > container egress-interface-mac-address { > > leaf outgoing-interface { > > type if:interface-ref; > > mandatory true; > > description > > "Name of the outgoing interface."; > > } > > leaf ieee-mac-address { > > type uint32; > > mandatory true; > > description > > "The nexthop points to an interface with > > a specific mac-address."; > > } > > description > > "The egress interface must be an Ethernet > > interface. Address resolution is not required > > for this nexthop."; > > } > > } > > > > It is not clear to me how you fit a MAC address into a 32 bit space > > ,or am I misreading this somehow and this is some form of index? > > > > " leaf ieee-mac-address { > > type uint32;" > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > i2rs mailing list > > i2rs@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > > > _______________________________________________ > > i2rs mailing list > > i2rs@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
