Hi Tom, Since this YANG model describes the RFC 8362 encodings, those encodings should be the primary reference all the leaves and identifies.
> On Jan 13, 2024, at 07:42, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of The IESG > <[email protected]> > Sent: 11 January 2024 14:35 > > The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to > consider the following document: - 'YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs' > <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-25.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > [email protected] mailing lists by 2024-01-25. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > <tp> > Most of my comments on this I-D from August are addressed but I still have > some doubts. > > p.11 identity nu-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Agreed. However, I think including both references would be good since RFC 8362 includes the flags in TLVs > > identity la-bit > here RFC8362 changes the meaning so I think the reference to RFC8362 is ok Actually, for the LA-bit, both references would be good. > > p.11 identity p-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Same as nu-bit. > > p.12 identity dn-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; RFC5340 A.4.1.1 would be a > better reference Same as nu-bit. > > p.12 identity e-bit > this is not esplained in the referenced RFC8362; in fact, this one defeats > me. It is present in a daigram, s.3.6, but with no explanation. Reading > RFC5340 it could be A.4.3 but I am not sure If one is familiar with OSPF, it is clear. For AS External and NSSA metrics, there are type 1 and type 2 metrics. Type 1 are simply added to intra-area metric to the originator. Type 2 metrics are considered greater than type 1 metrics. This hasn’t changed since RFC 1247 - just the OSFPv3 and OSPFv3 extended-LSA encodings. Since the description is brief, I’ll include it in its entirety. Thanks, Acee > > Tom Petch > > > > Abstract > > > This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF YANG > model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) > Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362. OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide > extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 5340. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
