Yingzhen Thank you for your reply: we are all set
Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:46 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]>, routing WG <[email protected]>, Chris Bowers <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT) Hi Eric, Thank you for your review and comments, please see my answers inline. Thanks, Yingzhen > On Aug 11, 2021, at 6:57 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I really admire the 4 authors > managing to reach a consensus even while having different affiliations: IETF at > its best! > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated). > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == COMMENTS == > > -- Section 2 -- > Having "Policy chain: A policy chain is a sequence of policy definitions > (described in Section 4)." in the terminology section does not really help the > reader… [Yingzhen]: The language here is not clear. It means that policy definitions are descried in Section 4. I’ll remove “(described in Section 4)" in the next version. > > -- Section 4.1 -- > While I am not a YANG expert, I wonder about the "*" (usually meaning 0 or > more) for address in the neighbor-set container ? How can a neighbor exist w/o > an address ? Why not using the "min-elements' YANG statement ? > [Yingzhen]: neighbor-set allows you to define a list of neighbor-set keyed by “name”. In each neighbor-set, besides name, there is a list of address. We didn’t add the “min-elements” statement because this allows to create an “empty” neighbor-set. I understand it’s not really useful when being referenced, but might be convenient during configuration. > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
