Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16-rtgdir-lc-zhang-2023-05-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14
Requested revision 14 (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-05-01
Requested 2023-04-17
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu
I-D last updated 2023-05-01
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -17 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -21 by Bo Wu (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -03 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -06 by Martin Björklund (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Emmanuel Baccelli (diff)
Comments 
This document had an early rtgdir review but I am requesting a final review as part of the IETF last-call. Thanks!
Assignment Reviewer Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Y-D0SJlg0i42ImkP5J9RqVROhG4
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 24)
Result Has issues
Completed 2023-05-01
review-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16-rtgdir-lc-zhang-2023-05-01-00
I have the following one nit comment and one question:

  augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
    + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
    + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop"
  {
    description
      "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path.";
    uses repair-path;
  }

The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single next-hop in
the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops".

Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well?