I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model.
Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10 Reviewer: Mike McBride Review Date: 13-04-2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Comments: I only found a few nits. Looks like it’s been through several reviews and otherwise looks good to go to me. The nits that I think should be considered: 2.2. Routing Instance and Rib ---Should "Rib" be "RIB"? 2.4. Nexthop A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. As illustrated in Section 2.4 of [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model], to support various use cases (e.g., load balance, protection, multicast ---Should "load balance" be "load balancing"? 1.1. Definitions and Acronyms ---Should RPC be added? How about FIB? Right now only RIB is defined. 2.5. RPC Operations route-add: Add a route or a set of routes to a RIB. A RIB name, the route prefix(es), route attributes, route vendor attributes, nexthop and whether return failure detail are passed as the input ---How about "detail" be "details". parameters. Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh-add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier but during situations when the nexthop already exists and the nexthop-id is known, this action is not expected.. The output is a ---This sentence is awkward to me. I would recommend changing it to two sentences as long as it doesn’t alter the intent: "Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh-add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier. However, in situations when the nexthop already exists, and the nexthop-id is known, this call action is not expected." Sound reasonable? mike
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
