Thanks Rob! Dear authors, please publish the updated draft ASAP.
Thanks! Jeff -----Original Message----- From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Wilton <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 08:01 To: Alia Atlas <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04 So the conversion tool has worked OK on the RIP model as well, but I spotted a few areas where manual conversion is required (because the types/structure between config and state differ): So along with the revision date, and a few FIX ME comments, the following few places also need to be manually tweaked/fixed: rwilton@rwilton-lnx:~/ietf-models-to-combined/draft_modules$ pyang -f tree --ietf [email protected] > [email protected] [email protected]:1: warning: unexpected modulename "ietf-rip" in [email protected], should be ietf-rip-nmda [email protected]:1: warning: unexpected latest revision "2017-06-05" in [email protected], should be 2017-09-21 [email protected]:740: error: unexpected keyword "type" <- Means that config and state type differ. [email protected]:761: error: unexpected keyword "type" <- Means that config and state type differ. [email protected]:818: error: there is already a child node to "interface" at [email protected]:636 with the name "originate-default-route" defined at [email protected]:731 (at [email protected]:141) <- Trying to merge an "originate-default-route" leaf from the state tree with the "originate-default-route" container in the equivalent config tree. RIB YANG model converted to NMDA structure attached. Thanks, Rob On 20/09/2017 18:27, Alia Atlas wrote: > As is customary, I have done my AD review of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04. First, I would like to thank the > authors, Xufeng, Prateek, and Vikram, as well as the WG for their work > on this document. > > My one major issue is that this does not conform to the NMDA > guidelines - where augmenting -state models is not preferred. It is > quite acceptable to have that in an appendix, if there are > implementations. I do see the shepherd's write-up indicates a partial > implementation exists. > There is some tooling to help convert a model to conform to NMDA; I've > cc'd Rob Wilton, who was working on that. > > I also have some questions. > > 1) For the prefix-set-ref, I don't see any information about what the > string should contain. > > 2) For the route-policy-ref, I don't see any information about what > the string should contain. > > Nits: > a) p.26:"choice auth-type-selection { > description > "Specify the authentication scheme. > The use of the key-chain reference here is > designed to align with other proposed protocol > models.";" > Since the key-chain model is approved for RFC publication, the > description can be updated. > > Once the model conforms to the NMDA guidelines, I will be happy to > advance this draft to IETF Last Call. > > Thanks, > Alia _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
