Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24

Request Review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-11-01
Requested 2016-10-27
Authors Ladislav Lhotka, Acee Lindem
Draft last updated 2016-11-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -24 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -24 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -24 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24-genart-lc-carpenter-2016-11-01
Reviewed rev. 24 (document currently at 25)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2016-11-01


This didn't have a chance to be updated before the cutoff,
so technically it's still "Ready with Issues", but I am
completely happy with Lada's proposed changes.


On 25/10/2016 20:56, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> thank you for the review. Please see my replies inline.
>> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at> wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> <>.
>> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2016-10-25
>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-03
>> IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03
>> Summary: Ready with (minor) issues
>> --------
>> Comments:
>> ---------
>> This seems to be a fine document. FYI I am not a YANG expert.
>> There is a dissent on a point of principle in the WG archive at

>> "Given the historical opposition to revising models once they have been cast as RFCs
>> that we have seen within the IETF, then I feel that avoiding incomplete models going
>> to RFC is the best course of action."
>> My understanding is that YANG models are intrinsically extensible, and this is
>> noted in the Abstract and Introduction. So I don't find this dissent compelling.
> Indeed, this data model is intended as a basis for other models, e.g. for routing protocols. Several such model are already under way.
>> Minor Issues:
>> -------------
>> 1)
>> Re on-link-flag and autonomous-flag: Please consider adding a normative
>> reference to the approved RFC-to-be draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host,
>> as well as RFC 4861. That document specifies that having both these flags
>> set to False is a legitimate combination, against current expectations.
> Will add.
>> 2)
>> Did you consider doing anything explicit for ULA prefixes, or would
>> this just be handled by special-next-hop/prohibit in border routers?
> The "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" submodule just tries to cover the parameters specified in RFC 4861. I understand that configuration specific to ULA prefixes is an add-on to this base set, and this can be implemented via augmenting the core model from other modules.
>> 3)
>>> Appendix B.  Minimum Implementation
>>>  Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user-
>>>  defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers.  This appendix
>>>  gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum
>>>  of available functions.  Such an implementation may be used for hosts
>>>  or very simple routers.
>> IPv6 hosts should definitely not send RFC4861 router advertisements.
>> Should that be stated in this appendix?
> Yes, good point, will do.
> Thanks, Lada
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C