Hi Tom, We knew we had some of these to address before asking for working group adoption but you have pointed out others that we missed. I agree we need a better prefix with expectation that this will probably not be the last augmentation to ietf-routing.yang. Thanks Again, Acee and Yingzhen
On 8/2/18, 6:46 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote: Another YANG I-D from the Routing Area; I wonder what I will find if I browse it:-) - Abstract contains a [Reference] - No reference for YANG Tree Diagrams - No mention of the current YANG 1.1 RFC - No YANG version statement in the module - No mention of NMDA in the body of the I-D (but it does appear in the YANG Module) - No references for the imported modules and the RFC in question do not appear in the I-D Normative References - YANG module references RFC8242 which does not appear in the I-D Normative References - RFC 6536 is obsolete - I wonder at the choice of prefix for this module - since the module is all about extensions to the rib, then naming it just 'rib' seems misleading. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
