IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4D7128CFF for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E1uMkYNF76dF for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30653128CB9 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id y63so80720055qkd.1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EndnOXH2EwF8xzr/ZUxruzxLsYOZKIlEbLJcqsYeoJw=; b=Pz6dz6SKw3UFTr6R3tIAPFnJH0W48XcGPNA2pKBwQtodHh9Z9Z/iCtj8g0D/zX+pUm JVollqLI9f595pspZuXFpaKbPrV3ZA2qfhJTNZSvOrC0m2eq3S4IldteUZPitWlat/GX qbmJ8M/3rJENhbSIziJzwjdk1jWnrFt5CZWtndet7recNnfcjlPE9DQtGIBSdLdIUOct MUcavLc3xn1pt9ducCupHBr2Ha63ZmDEEfk1eyO65vvl0Dt8ruY6mjkTjWhIvGHaxhsO O9SSTeEBviX8Yds+gUOKK4viIdUTj+JXbfW6/RUsH+4nkix6A0favfoTb5K51zdZGdw/ SmKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EndnOXH2EwF8xzr/ZUxruzxLsYOZKIlEbLJcqsYeoJw=; b=D/UWutzBe7SBtm80vavxynT0q9sfxldsytJfa7iSihiGEwZawNnQcBI3sJnZdtYN5s nNUm/015g12PyTx6XSy8RC0P2SAEE5gYA41waMR05UHHL+QRpudfLUaaQ1qetqz9iwCD I6Q6/uCnFAddLtcUIFuX4n4+skVy88nmDOwf9JN/Lc8AErFss11iA+zvrubTgfWvJMcO hkgy93kt+XsE72GE6CMEajczmP+GCA6m/5dHtyCF2SGXH5nryRzJnT4neJeUyoDA6nzb DMULF0a3w+C3FhfU9bQXAnwRpci8xp3ky72HZgJj8K9JWZUkS/XWO+0aO4uO8TpGfX3Z olSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/47nRjPHyrO0JnJNLICqigRa3aLnj+SM3zWxk9t+MtzeypoHG1q xJDT2wvxLqzMfNh9XV/sZsRQ+tSFoQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.94.1 with SMTP id s1mr22984115qkb.83.1493019718354; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.47.129 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0201MB19108C572D4B977A53188CEE84330@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0201MB19108C572D4B977A53188CEE84330@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:41:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuraegGUtHE++VN2nMv7O1Li-GZ4Acb536PZHJvWrmE0ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Routing directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp
To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com, Athanasios_Kyparlis@jabil.com, parikhr@vmware.com, zhangmingui@huawei.com
Cc: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114c8f38f48ede054de4bd26"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/YqzASK1oZAHDlzBloK2P03m5mzs>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 07:42:02 -0000

Hi,

Jonathan Hardwick asked me to do an early review of the
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp document (currently revision 02) for the routing
directorate.

The draft itself is pretty straight forward and compact, especially when
you consider that a lot of text has to be repeated two or four times
(IPv4/IPv6, config vs. read-only state).

But I had quite a bit of trouble mapping the phrases from the new
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-02 document to the existing VRRP documents (e.g.
RFC5798). This might come from my unfamilarity with VRRP.

The draft YANG model allows to read (if:interfaces-state) and configure
(if:interfaces) virtual IP addresses, but this does not seem to be a common
phrase from the RFCs. Is it the same as "address of the virtual router"
often mentioned in RFC5798?

In addition to this, I found (I think) a typo or inconsistency in Appendix
A:
the ascii art says "eth0" but tree says "eth1".

Henning Rogge

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Hardwick <
Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> wrote:

> Hi Henning
>
>
>
> Please would you do a routing directorate early review of this draft?
> Would you be able to do it in 2 to 3 weeks?
>
>
>
> Many thanks
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> Please would you do a routing directorate QA review of this draft?
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp/
>
>
>
> The draft is still in the RTGWG and is ready for WG last call.  The WG
> chairs have asked for a QA review from the directorate.  The following link
> provides guidance on QA reviews.
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email