Hi Tom,
On 9/4/20, 10:06 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch" <[email protected] on
behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Chris Bowers
<[email protected]>
Sent: 03 September 2020 21:50
RTGWG,
An objection has been raised with respect to requesting publication of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model at this time. The main concern expressed is that
changes in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model may require changes in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.
The main area of concern is the text in section 7 of
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which illustrates how the current version of
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model augments rpol:defined-sets, rpol:conditions, and
rpol:actions with bp:bgp-defined-sets, bp:bgp-conditions, and bp:bgp-actions.
I would like to suggest adding the following text to section 7 to make it
clear that this text is not normative.
=================
The example below provides an illustration of how another data model can
augment parts of this routing policy data model.
It uses specific examples from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 to show in a
concrete manner how the different pieces fit together. This example is not
normative with respect to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model.
=================
Would this text, or something similar, help to address this concern?
<tp>
mmm sounds like me:-)
I misread it at first as saying that the BGP model is not a Normative
module as opposed to this not being a Normative Reference but have not got a
better wording.#
I would like something added about the prefix. I commented on BGP that the
prefix were not used consistently and were not a good choice in IMHO while the
YANG doctor review suggests a major restructuring of BGP which could impact on
the prefix.
<Acee>
The authors of ietf-routing-policy really don't have any control over the BGP
submodule prefixes. We can't use a different prefix since the BGP modules
import ietf-routing-policy - not vice-versa. That is why this section is
non-normative.
</Acee>
I think that this module should spell out which BGP module it is referring
to with this prefix and perhaps choose a prefix other than bp: I think it
should be bgp-... such as bgp-pol with all the BGP modules have prefixe bgp-...
but that is of course for the IDR WG to decide.
<Acee>
I can add some text that provides the mapping of BGP submodules to the
prefixes. However, I can't just use a different prefix in the example. Would
it help if we also moved the examples to appendices?
</Acee>
Thanks,
Acee
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Chris
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:45 PM Chris Bowers
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
RTGWG,
This email starts the two week WG last call for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.
Please indicate support for, or opposition to, the publication of this
document as Proposed Standard, along with the reasoning behind that support
or
opposition.
Jeff Tantsura is a co-author of the document, so he won't be involved
in judging consensus.
IPR:
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
not advance until a response has been received from each author and
each individual that has contributed to the document.
This WG last call will end on September 2, 2020.
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
