Hi Tom, I would agree with your assessment. However, I'd also put this draft in the "wisdom to know the difference" category. I won't speak for the rest of the WG but fixing it isn't a priority for me. Thanks, Acee
On 5/18/21, 5:46 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Looking at this I-D, from OPSAWG, I get somewhat concerned and wonder what those with more knowledge of the LSR protocols than I would think. It caters for routing between PE and CE, RIP, VRRP, BGP, PIM, MLD, IGMP, BFD not to mention the two LSR protocols and so contains the YANG to configure those protocols but in a way that is different to the YANG models for those protocols. Thus it uses address family to mean IPv4 or IPV6 (not the BGP meaning) and often splits the protocol on that basis, not e.g. as OSPFv2 or OSPFv3. There is but a single OSPF identity, imported from a common module which only ever mentions OSPFv2, which means there is no way of specifying in YANG what is part of OSPFv2, what is OSPFv3, only what is OSPF for IPv4 or what is OSPF for IPv6. Other terminology is different. Thus for BGP, symptomatic if not a concern here, it specifies hold-time and keep-alive, where BGP omits the hyphen, and it does not mention BGP Identifier which I would see as the starting point for BGP. Of more interest here, it uses level1, level2 and level1-2 where every other document I know uses level-1 etc including the hyphen. OSPF authentication is rather different to that of ospf-yang with IPsec, key-chain and key-explicit. I would sum up the I-D as 'routing for everyone but different' and wonder what others might think. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
