Hi Acee, Thanks for these changes/additions.
One comment below. > On 20. Aug 2019, at 17:05, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > > On 8/19/19, 12:25 PM, "Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26: No Objection > > 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-ospf-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Just two quick questions about references: > > - Is there no reference for mtu-ignore (see section 2.4)? If not, can you > further describe what exactly would be disabled? > > I added "specified in section 10.6 of [RFC2328]." to the sentence. > > > - Also is there no reference for OSPF Non-Stop Routing (NSR) (see section > 2.4)...? > > While many vendors have implemented this feature, there is no standard as the > goal is to restart without other OSPF routers being impacted. We did add the > additional text to describe the feature and differences with OSPF Graceful > Restart. > > And one more comment: > > In the interface-common-config part (p76 and p77) you provide example or > default values for various intervals and delays. Where does those values > come > from? Would it be possible to provide a reference/RFC that specifies actual > default values? Especially when you specify something normatively ("The > value > MUST be greater than 'hello-interval'.") it would be good to provide a > reference! Do any specification maybe also specify min and max value? If > so, > you should mention them here as well! If not would it make sense to > recommend > min and max values? If possible I would strongly support to describe min > and > max values as well! > > The whole question of defaults generated quite a lot of discussion as there > isn't really any one-size-fits all default and the sample values are very > conservative. This is how we ended up with sample values in the text rather > than YANG defaults. Since the protocol specification doesn’t specify min and > max values, we were hesitant to specify them in the YANG model more than 20 > years later. Also, many vendors have supported sub-second hellos. This wasn't > a good idea and it has been supplanted by BFD. I will add RFC 2328 Appendix C > as a reference for the sample values. Good to hear that this was discussed! I understand the problem and a YANG is not the right place to “change” the spec. Adding a reference would be good! One more question regarding the sentence with normative language above: Is that already specified in some other spec and it would make sense to not use normative language here but provide the reference? Mirja > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
