On 03/05/2022 01:01, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Dear RTGWG,
This mail begins a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-10.
I find some of the language less than clear.
RFC8349 is specific that a RIB is for a single address family (which is
not how I see it used in other places) so I think that that needs
calling out in section 1.
tag is defined in RFC8349 as 16 bit and specific to RIP. Here it is 32
bit and generic. I do not understand what is meant by the YANG leaf tag
in this I-D.
tree snapshot is used in several places but these are not snapshots,
extracts perhaps.
the YANG module is scrappy, lots of independent scraps. This can be
made clearer with a
/* comment */
line at the start of each scrap. Of course the comment needs to be
correct; the YANG description of the first augment seems at odds with
the augment itself.
active route seems a different concept from RFC8349. Here it is per
protocol per destination prefix; in RFC8349 it is per destination prefix.
I assume that the choice of inet:ip-address is deliberate, following
RFC8349.
There is an RFC somewhere specifying the representation of IPv6
addresses which I cannot find but think that the JSON example gets it
right and the XML example gets it wrong.
Tom Petch
The authors have addressed all the comments received from the wg, YANG doctors
and routing directorate have been addressed, thanks authors for timely
responses.
IPR: No IPR has been submitted against this draft.
Authors - please respond to the WG whether you are aware of any applicable IPR.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
