Hi Xufeng, Thank you for the update. Looking at the diffs, it seems that you have addressed my comments. This version is fine by me for a QA review at this stage.
Thanks, Julien Jan. 27, 2017 - [email protected]: > Hi Julien, > > Thank you much for the review. An updated version > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-03 has been posted to > address most of these items. > Please let us know for any further issues. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:40 AM >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft. >> For >> more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >> €‹http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >> >> At this stage, the intend of the following is not to discuss the WG's >> decision >> about the I-D, but rather to help improving its content. >> >> Please not that I am not deep Yang expert, but RFC 6087 has provided me with >> valuable guidelines. >> >> _Summary_ >> The Yang module specified in the I-D may be almost complete to move forward. >> The carrying document however deserves an update before going to the next >> step. I do not repeat every comment raised by Yang doctors in last December, >> but those need to be addressed as well. >> > [Xufeng] Replied in a separate email thread. > >> _Comments_ >> - Add "import ietf-isis" and "import ietf-bgp" (page 9) > [Xufeng] Added "ietf-isis". The model "ietf-bgp" has expired and fails to > compile. We may wait for a newer version of it. Since we do not use any type > or grouping from "ietf-bgp", we do not need to import it for now. > >> - According to RFC 6087, section 3.1, "the module description statement MUST >> contain a reference to the latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement" (p >> 10). > [Xufeng] Fixed. Thanks. > >> - Both "prefix-set-ref" and "route-policy-ref" are defined as new types (p >> 11): is >> there a reason not to consider them as generic types specified elsewhere >> (e.g., >> among routing types). > [Xufeng] These two local definitions are intended to refer any common types > defined in other models whenever available. At this moment, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ has expired > and does not compile. We will update this model whenever an updated policy > model is available. > >> - Yangvalidator raises errors on the 6 "must" expressions (cf. Yang doctors' >> review). > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - The security section does not say anything about the read/write fields nor >> the >> "clear route" RPC: it really requires some work, please see the template in >> RFC >> 6087, section 6.1. > [Xufeng] Updated the security section. > >> - Normative references needs to be updated, at least with the following: >> * RFC 6991 >> * RFC 7223 >> * RFC 7277 >> * draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types >> * draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain >> * draft-ietf-ospf-yang >> * draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg >> * draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model >> * draft-ietf-bfd-yang > [Xufeng] Updated. > >> - Reading RFC 1724 (RIPv2 MIB) is clearly unnecessary to understand the >> document, the reference must thus be moved to the informative list. > [Xufeng] Adjusted as suggested. > >> >> _Nits_ >> - In the "bfd-protocol-parms" string (page 10), the abbreviation for >> "parameters" >> is unusual; was "params" intended? > [Xufeng] Changed to "bfd-protocol-parameters" > >> - In "originate-default-route-container" (p 12), to be consistent: s/RIP or >> RIPng >> instance/RIP routing instance/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "redistribute-container" (p 12): s/BFP autonomous system/BGP autonomous >> system/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "list isis" (p 12-13): s/ISIS/IS-IS/ [5 times] > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "list ospfv2" (p 14-15): s/OSPF routing instance into the RIP routing > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> instance/OSPFv2 routing instance into the RIPv2 routing instance/ [twice] > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "route-type" of "list ospfv2" (p 15): s/OSPF routes matching the >> specified >> route type into the RIP routing instance/OSPFv2 routes matching the specified >> route type into the RIPv2 routing instance/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "list ospfv3" (p 15): s/OSPF routing instance into the RIP routing >> instance/OSPFv3 routing instance into the RIPng routing instance/ [twice] > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "route-type" of "list ospfv3" (p 16): s/OSPF routes matching the >> specified >> route type into the RIP routing instance/OSPFv3 routes matching the specified >> route type into the RIPng routing instance/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "ripv2" (p 16): s/RIP routing instance into the current RIP routing >> instance/RIPv2 routing instance into the current RIPv2 routing instance/ >> [twice] > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "leaf listen" of "list interface" (p 29): s/RIP or RIPng/RIPv2 or RIPng/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "container ipv4" (p 31): s/A RIPv2 RIP neighbor/A RIPv2 neighbor/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "container ipv6" (p 33): s/A RIPv2 RIP neighbor/A RIPng neighbor/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> - In "leaf ipv6-prefix" of "container routes" (p 34): s/in RFC5952)and/in >> RFC5952) >> and/ > [Xufeng] Fixed. > >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Julien > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
