Hi Martin, I just published version -08 and removed the sentence in the module description and made a few editorial changes.
Thank you again for the review and please let us know if you have more comments. Thanks, Yingzhen On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:10 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > See inline below. > > On 4/23/21, 3:19 AM, "Martin Björklund" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you for addressing my comments. Pruning to the one remaining > question. > > > Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Thank you for your review, and we've published version -07 to > address your > > comments. > > > > Please see my answers below inline. > > > > Thanks, > > Yingzhen > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:51 AM Martin Björklund via Datatracker < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Reviewer: Martin Björklund > > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > > > Here is my YANG doctors review of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06. > > > This is a well-written draft, and my comments are minor. > > [...] > > > > o module description > > > > > > This YANG module extends the generic data model for > > > RIB by augmenting the ietf-routing model. It is > > > intended that the module will be extended by vendors > > > to define vendor-specific RIB parameters. > > > > > > I don't think I understand this description. Here's my > understanding, > > > but I don't think it is correct: > > > > > > 1. This module extends the existing RIB data model by using > > > augmentations. > > > 2. The existing RIB data model is defined in the YANG module > > > ietf-routing. > > > 3. The purpose of this new module is to allow vendors to > extend the > > > the existing RIB data model with vendor-specific parameters. > > > > > > It seems 3 is at least incomplete, since this module defines some > > > additional config param for static routes, and addtional state > and > > > statistics for ribs. > > > > > > It is not clear how vendors are expected to extend this model; > the > > > word "vendor" doesn't show up anywhere else. > > > > > > [Yingzhen]: This module does define additional parameters and is > > augmenting the existing RIB model. The module can be further > augmented. Any > > suggestions for a replacement of "vendor-specific"? > > All models can be augmented so I don't think this needs to be spelled > out. When it is spelled out like this I expect some discussion about > how it differ from the "normal" augment that always can be done. > > Some modules define some generic common structure, but are not > very useful unless they are augmented; they need to define how vendors > (or sdos) should extend the module. However, I think that this module > is useful on its own, and thus I would remove the sentence "It is > intended ...". > > I'm not sure the source of this text but it has been almost boiler plate > for protocol YANG models. Having said that, I don't have any problem > removing it. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > /martin > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
