>From a process perspective I disagree with this. Just because the 2 drafts >will end up going to RFC-ed queue at the same time does not mean we should be >adding circular references.
But if that's what the IESG would like me to, I'd be happy to put in a sentence. Please provide me specifics of where I should add the sentence and what the sentence should look like. Thanks Nitin On 4/13/18, 9:04 AM, "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote: Nitin: On #1) - These drafts will work through the process at the same time. There will be a "MISREF" - but it should be cleared. Originally we were concerned about this fact because we wanted to send the I2RS Info model earlier. However, due to the network management datastore model work in netmod/netconf - this work has been held up. Please put the reference in and spin it as -16.txt. Thanks! Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:09 AM To: Alvaro Retana; The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Susan Hares; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT) Hi Alvaro, Thanks for the review. Please see NB> below (1) Even if just Informative, it would be nice to have a reference to draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model. NB> I'm not sure how referencing works. If I understand correctly, rib-info-model then can't be published until data-model is published...and then there is circular referencing. (2) I think that the use of some Normative Language is not as expected. (2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs." In both cases "MAY" seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to indicate that a routing instance can optionally include RIBs. NB> Rewording to " A network device MAY contain routing instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs." Note that S2.2 (Routing instance) identifies a rib-list as a mandatory component of a routing instance, and there's no clear indication that the list may be empty. NB> Good point. I'll fix that. (2.2) S2.1: "A routing instance MAY even have two or more RIBs of the same rib family (e.g., IPv6)." This use of "MAY" also seems to be stating a fact. NB> Yes it is a fact. So removed use of "MAY". (2.3) "MAY be optionally", "MAY contain the following optional fields" are redundant phrases as MAY already means optional. NB> Good point. Fixed. Thanks Nitin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
