Subject: [i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:14:10 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Even if just Informative, it would be nice to have a reference to
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model.

(2) I think that the use of some Normative Language is not as expected.

(2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing
instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."  In both cases "MAY"
seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to indicate that
a routing instance can optionally include RIBs.  Note that S2.2 (Routing
instance) identifies a rib-list as a mandatory component of a routing instance,
and there's no clear indication that the list may be empty.

(2.2) S2.1: "A routing instance MAY even have two or more RIBs of the same rib
family (e.g., IPv6)."  This use of "MAY" also seems to be stating a fact.

(2.3) "MAY be optionally", "MAY contain the following optional fields" are
redundant phrases as MAY already means optional.

---

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 23:08:54 -0700

Hi Alvaro,

   Thanks for the review. Please see NB> below    

NB> I'm not sure how referencing works. If I understand correctly, rib-info-model then can't be published until data-model is published...and then there is circular referencing.

    (2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing
    instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."  In both cases "MAY"
    seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to indicate that
    a routing instance can optionally include RIBs.  

NB> Rewording to " A network device MAY contain routing instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."

Note that S2.2 (Routing
    
NB> Good point. I'll fix that.

NB> Yes it is a fact. So removed use of "MAY".

 NB> Good point. Fixed.

Thanks
Nitin

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:04:09 -0400

Nitin: 

On #1) -  These drafts will work through the process at the same time.
There will be a "MISREF" - but it should be cleared.   

Originally we were concerned about this fact because we wanted to send the
I2RS Info model earlier.  However, due to the network management datastore
model work in netmod/netconf - this work has been held up. 

Please put the reference in and spin it as -16.txt. 

Thanks!

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:09 AM
To: Alvaro Retana; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Susan Hares;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro,

NB> I'm not sure how referencing works. If I understand correctly,
rib-info-model then can't be published until data-model is published...and
then there is circular referencing.

    (2.1) For example, in S2.1 (RIB definition): "There MAY be many routing
    instances and each routing instance MAY contain RIBs."  In both cases
"MAY"
    seems to be a statement of fact, and not a normative statement to
indicate that
    a routing instance can optionally include RIBs.  

NB> Rewording to " A network device MAY contain routing instances and each
routing instance MAY contain RIBs."

Note that S2.2 (Routing
    instance) identifies a rib-list as a mandatory component of a routing
instance,
    and there's no clear indication that the list may be empty.

    (2.2) S2.1: "A routing instance MAY even have two or more RIBs of the
same rib
    family (e.g., IPv6)."  This use of "MAY" also seems to be stating a
fact.

    (2.3) "MAY be optionally", "MAY contain the following optional fields"
are
    redundant phrases as MAY already means optional.
    
 NB> Good point. Fixed.

Thanks
Nitin   

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:57:54 -0700

>From a process perspective I disagree with this. Just because the 2 drafts will end up going to RFC-ed queue at the same time does not mean we should be adding circular references.

But if that's what the IESG would like me to, I'd be happy to put in a sentence. Please provide me specifics of where I should add the sentence and what the sentence should look like.

Thanks
Nitin

On 4/13/18, 9:04 AM, "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Nitin: 

    
    
    Thanks!
    
    Sue Hares 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
    Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 2:09 AM
    To: Alvaro Retana; The IESG
    Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Susan Hares;
    [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
    draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-15: (with COMMENT)
    
    Hi Alvaro,

    

    
    
    Note that S2.2 (Routing

      

     NB> Good point. Fixed.
    
    Thanks
    Nitin