Hi, yes I think the new changes improve the draft and make it easier to understand.
I wonder if there is a way in YANG to prevent the duplication of all the fields between "interface" and "interface-state"... putting the common fields into a section of their own and refer to them twice, once as "read only" and once "read-writeable". Henning Rogge On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Henning, > > Please review if the attached change proposal is ok. > Thanks, > - Xufeng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Xufeng Liu >> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:18 AM >> To: 'Henning Rogge' <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; Athanasios >> Kyparlis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Routing WG <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp >> >> Hi Henning, >> >> Yes. We will add some explanations. >> Thanks, >> - Xufeng >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:50 AM >> > To: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; Athanasios >> > Kyparlis <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; Routing WG <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of >> > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Henning, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thank you much for the review. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > You are right about the mapping for "address of the virtual router". >> > > The >> > existing YANG data model for configuring and managing IP addresses is >> > RFC7277, which augments the ietf-interfaces model specified by >> > RFC7223. This VRRP model follows the same paradigm. Such a structure >> > is also VRRP protocols are usually implemented. >> > >> > Maybe the naming of the variables or the explanation of them could be >> > improved to explicitly state this. >> > >> > Henning >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > We will fix the error in Appendix A. in the next revision. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > - Xufeng >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From: Henning Rogge [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 3:41 AM >> > > To: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; Xufeng Liu >> > > <[email protected]>; Athanasios Kyparlis >> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> > > [email protected] >> > > Cc: Routing WG <[email protected]> >> > > Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of >> > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Jonathan Hardwick asked me to do an early review of the >> > > draft-ietf-rtgwg- >> > yang-vrrp document (currently revision 02) for the routing directorate. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The draft itself is pretty straight forward and compact, especially >> > > when you >> > consider that a lot of text has to be repeated two or four times >> > (IPv4/IPv6, config vs. read-only state). >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > But I had quite a bit of trouble mapping the phrases from the new >> > > draft-ietf- >> > rtgwg-yang-vrrp-02 document to the existing VRRP documents (e.g. RFC5798). >> > This might come from my unfamilarity with VRRP. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The draft YANG model allows to read (if:interfaces-state) and >> > > configure >> > (if:interfaces) virtual IP addresses, but this does not seem to be a >> > common phrase from the RFCs. Is it the same as "address of the virtual >> > router" often mentioned in RFC5798? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In addition to this, I found (I think) a typo or inconsistency in >> > > Appendix A: >> > > >> > > the ascii art says "eth0" but tree says "eth1". >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Henning Rogge >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Hardwick >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Henning >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please would you do a routing directorate early review of this >> > > draft? Would >> > you be able to do it in 2 to 3 weeks? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Many thanks >> > > >> > > Jon >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please would you do a routing directorate QA review of this draft? >> > > >> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/ >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The draft is still in the RTGWG and is ready for WG last call. The >> > > WG chairs >> > have asked for a QA review from the directorate. The following link >> > provides guidance on QA reviews. >> > > >> > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
