On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Henning, > > > > Thank you much for the review. > > > > You are right about the mapping for "address of the virtual router". The > existing YANG data model for configuring and managing IP addresses is > RFC7277, which augments the ietf-interfaces model specified by RFC7223. This > VRRP model follows the same paradigm. Such a structure is also VRRP protocols > are usually implemented.
Maybe the naming of the variables or the explanation of them could be improved to explicitly state this. Henning > > > > We will fix the error in Appendix A. in the next revision. > > > > Regards, > > - Xufeng > > > > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 3:41 AM > To: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; Xufeng Liu > <[email protected]>; Athanasios Kyparlis <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Routing WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp > > > > Hi, > > > > Jonathan Hardwick asked me to do an early review of the > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp document (currently revision 02) for the routing > directorate. > > > > The draft itself is pretty straight forward and compact, especially when you > consider that a lot of text has to be repeated two or four times (IPv4/IPv6, > config vs. read-only state). > > > > But I had quite a bit of trouble mapping the phrases from the new > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-02 document to the existing VRRP documents (e.g. > RFC5798). This might come from my unfamilarity with VRRP. > > > > The draft YANG model allows to read (if:interfaces-state) and configure > (if:interfaces) virtual IP addresses, but this does not seem to be a common > phrase from the RFCs. Is it the same as "address of the virtual router" often > mentioned in RFC5798? > > > > In addition to this, I found (I think) a typo or inconsistency in Appendix A: > > the ascii art says "eth0" but tree says "eth1". > > > > Henning Rogge > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Hardwick > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Henning > > > > Please would you do a routing directorate early review of this draft? Would > you be able to do it in 2 to 3 weeks? > > > > Many thanks > > Jon > > > > > > Please would you do a routing directorate QA review of this draft? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/ > > > > The draft is still in the RTGWG and is ready for WG last call. The WG chairs > have asked for a QA review from the directorate. The following link provides > guidance on QA reviews. > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
