A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
RFC 8022
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 24 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
Should the reference to 6536. Be normative?
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
If there exists a draft for a yang module that augments this in a way that includes cryptographic values (e.g. maybe for an IPsec VPN or something) then I think that'd be a nice addition to section 11 as an informative reference.
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
* Have you considered including support for the Route Information Option (RFC4191)? Seems like it would be useful. * default-lifetime is defined with a range of 0..9000 in this document but the upper limit will be raised to 65535 if and when draft-ietf-6man-maxra is approved. Is there a mechanism by which you can easily support this increased upper limit?
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection