Hi Tom,
On 9/16/20, 6:01 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote:
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'
<acee>
Fixed in -22.
</acee>
container conditions /returns control the/returns control to the/
<acee>
Fixed in -22
</acee>
and
should or SHOULD? (an AD is bound to ask if we meant this:-)
<acee>
I think it should... Started a thread on this amongst YANG doctors. There is no
consistency in published models on "description" statement validation. However,
in times we've discussed this on the NETMOD list, these descriptions are
normative.
</acee>
'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!
<acee>
Good catch. I think the problem here is that "policy chain" is used for both
the list of import or export policies and the list of statement within a called
policy. This is clearly wrong and policy chain should only be used for the
former. Let me assure my co-authors agree.
Thanks,
Acee
</acee>
Thanks,
Acee
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
