Hi Alia, Thanks. We will try to complete the update within a week.
Best, - Xufeng From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:03 AM To: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Robert Wilton <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04 Xufeng, Thank you very much. I'd like to get this through before next IETF - which means around a 3 week cycle, with IETF Last Call for 2 weeks & then needing to be timed for the telechat. Regards, Alia On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks to Alia for the review the comments. Thanks to Rob for putting the model through the conversion tool, and providing the suggestions. We will update the model soon. Regards, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Tantsura > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 7:57 PM > To: Robert Wilton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Alia Atlas > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-04 > > Thanks Rob! > > Dear authors, > please publish the updated draft ASAP. > > Thanks! > Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf > of Robert Wilton > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 08:01 > To: Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > [email protected]:1<mailto:[email protected]:1>: > warning: unexpected modulename > "ietf-rip" in > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, should > be ietf-rip-nmda > [email protected]:1<mailto:[email protected]:1>: > warning: unexpected latest revision > "2017-06-05" in > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, should > be 2017-09-21 > > [email protected]:740<mailto:[email protected]:740>: > error: unexpected keyword "type" > <- Means that config and state type differ. > > > [email protected]:761<mailto:[email protected]:761>: > error: unexpected keyword "type" > <- Means that config and state type differ. > > > [email protected]:818<mailto:[email protected]:818>: > error: there is already a child node > to "interface" at > [email protected]:636<mailto:[email protected]:636> > with the name > "originate-default-route" defined at > [email protected]:731<mailto:[email protected]:731> > (at > [email protected]:141<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
