Subject: [netmod] comments on draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-05

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:36:12 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

I have some minor comments:

o  Section 4.3

     One or more routing tables MUST be configured for each address
     family supported by the server.  Each router instance MUST
     designate, for every address family that the router instance
     supports, exactly one routing table as its main routing table.

   I don't think it is correct to use MUST like this.  As an
   implementor, what am I supposed to do with these MUST statements?
   I would think that what the configuration looks like is the
   operator's task.

o  Section 4.3

   o  By default, a routing protocol SHOULD be connected to the main
      routing table of each address family supported by that routing
      protocol.  See Section 4.4 for further explanation.

   I think that either s/SHOULD be/MUST be/ or s/SHOULD be/is/

   This means that if the operator has not configured the system
   differently, the implementation must connect it to the main routing
   table.

   (The same SHOULD occurs in 4.4 and in the YANG module in one place)

o  Section 4.4.2

   In order to make the document easier to read, I suggest you simply
   refer to the Appendix in this section, instead of inlining
   essentially the entire module.  If you do this, I suggest you
   change your descriptive text into comments that you put in the
   Appendix.

o  Section 5

         In all cases, the relevant parts of the core routing data
         model are disabled but MUST NOT be deleted from the
         configuration by the server.

   On a first read, I couldn't understand what this meant.

   After reading the rest of the section, I think I know what you
   mean, but I think you can make this simpler by removing the
   paragraph.

   I think the text is confusing b/c it kind of implies that if this
   paragraph was not there, an implementation could choose to delete
   the relevant parts of the configuration, and that would be just
   weird.

o  Many XPath expressions use the "//" construct for no apparent
   reason.   It should be a single "/".

o  The example-rip module's filename has a revision date, but there is
   no revision statement in the module.  I suggest you remove the
   revision statement from the filename (since this is just an
   example).

/martin

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:45:34 -0500

>    I would think that what the configuration looks like is the

I agree this should be edited and clarified. My idea how this could work is this: A client creates a router instance and configures the name of the main routing table for every address supported by the router instance (this effectivelly turns on the address family for that instance). If any of the named tables doesn't exist, the server creates it. Does it make sense?

>    differently, the implementation must connect it to the main routing

This is the normal behaviour, but a special implementation may use another table for the default connection. 

>    change your descriptive text into comments that you put in the

OK, I will do that, previously this section also sometimes got out of sync with the appendix.

>    the relevant parts of the configuration, and that would be just

OK.

>    reason.   It should be a single "/".

The reason was to enable the use of such XPath expressions without modification in different contexts where the XML root may be some encapsulating element (typically in the NETCONF namespace). But I agree it is a hack that makes XPath evaluation inefficient. I will remove it.
 
>    revision statement from the filename (since this is just an

Agreed.

Thanks, Lada

>
>
>
>
> /martin
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C