Looking some more, at -15:
The choice of OSPF identity puzzles me
I would expect a base OSPF identity to be useful from which all other
OSPF then derive
I am not familiar with NSSA T1 and T2 - I see no such language in
RFC3101 nor is there an update to that RFC (but they do appear in
ospf-yang!)
The identity names seem inconsistent
identity ospf-internal-type {
identity ospf-external-type {
identity ospf-external-t1 {
identity ospf-external-t2-type {
identity ospf-nssa-type {
identity ospf-nssa-t1 {
I suspect that '-type' is redundant if the usage is as in this i-D
More generally, is the intention that these match the LSA type? If so,
it would help me to have the value of the LSA type in the YANG
description - it is what I think in terms of.
s.10
'described by the YANG modules' !
"RFC 5302 - Domain-Wide Prefix Distributino ..."
container routing-policy {
leaf name {
type string;
I have always liked the more constrained yang-identifier as opposed to
string but suspect I am alone in that.
I did look for the four original authors and did not see them; they
are there - I was looking at the second list of parties and missed the
first list which is where they are
Tom Petch
I have some doubts about this I-D
-01 had four authors; -13 has four authors. None are the same yet much
of the text in the I-D is the same.
NSSA could be added to the Terminology and/or expanded on first use.
Policy subroutines sound interesting - if there is one example I would
find useful it would be one involving subroutines.
10 YANG modules
I only see one singular
XXXX is used as a placeholder for two different I-D
I like the reference to RFC2178, RFC5130 but they need to appear in the
I-D References and more YANG reference clauses would not come amiss
typedef metric-modification-type {
....
If the result would exceed the maximum metric
(0xffffffff), set the metric to the maximum.";
OSPF has a 16 bit link metric, a 24 bit route metric as defined in
ospg-yang. Defining a maximum of 0xffffffff seems problematic. Add two
to 16777215 and you get one.
The other LSR protocol has a 6 or 24 or 32 bit metric depending on where
you look.
"The prefix member in CIDR notation -- "
member of what? My prefix are a number!
leaf mask-length-upper {
the example implies that upper and lower must both be present which I do
not see in the YANG. Both upper and lower are part of the YANG key of
the list which also suggests that both need to be present
grouping match-proto-route-type-condition {
gets a bit long; here and elsewhere, is 'proto' needed as part of the
identifier?
container prefix-sets {
leaf mode {
I am not a fan of features - Cartesian explosion - but wonder if one is
called for here at least for mixed mode
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
