From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
Sent: 15 September 2020 21:37

Hi Tom, Chris, et al,
I've moved the non-normative sections to appendixes in the -22 version. Also, 
at the risk of being redundant, I included an explicit reference for the 
unpopular BGP sub-module prefixes.

<tp>
Looks good.

Every time I read this, I see something:-(  So some trivia for as and when a 
new version is needed:

container prefixes has 'is is'

container conditions /returns control the/returns control to the/
and
should or SHOULD? (an AD is bound to ask if we meant this:-)

'chain' is probably worth expanding on.  It appears in 4.4 and is relied on in 
s.5 without ever a formal definition and it might not be obvious how it is 
represented in the YANG model. I infer that it is the leaf-list import-policy 
or export-policy but chain does not appear in the descriptions thereof.  So I 
think a sentence in 4.4 saying what a chain looks like as YANG would help as 
would a mention of chain alongside list in the description of export-policy and 
import-policy.  If my inference is wrong, then please tell me what a chain is!

Tom Petch

Thanks
Acee

On 9/10/20, 6:10 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Tom,

    As previously noted, the BGP model augments the routing-policy model and 
not the other way around. Hence, resolution of BGP model issues is not a 
prerequisite for publication of this YANG model. AFAIK, none of the open issues 
with the BGP model are related to its augmentation of the routing-policy model.


    Now, I'd like to see the BGP model issues addressed and the model progress 
as much as you but there is absolutely nothing unusual regarding its treatment.

    Thanks,
    Acee

    On 9/10/20, 11:44 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: 09 September 2020 21:07

        RTGWG,

        I think there is rough WG consensus to submit 
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model to the IESG for publication.  I will include a 
description of the discussion related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model in the 
shepherd writeup.  It will likely take the IESG several months to publish 
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model.  If there are changes in 
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model that make it desirable to change the text of the 
example in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model before publication, then any changes 
in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model will be discussed within RTGWG.

        <tp>
        Chris
        The other thought that I had was that the treatment of bgp-model, which 
I would regard as unusual, might attract some interesting comment from such as 
Genart or Opsdir reviews so it might be valuable to get those done earlier 
rather than later.

        Tom Petch

        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

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to