Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9398 <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear Hongji and coauthors,

Checking in with you regarding this document; we do not believe that we have received a reply to our follow-up items below.  Please review, and let us know how this document should be further updated.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Apr 28, 2023, at 9:47 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Hongji.
> 
> Thank you for your quick reply!  We have updated this document per your notes below.
> 
> We have several follow-up items for you:
> 
> Regarding this item and your reply:
> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:
>>> 
>>> a) Please clarify the meaning of "under interface view".
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> description "Config attributes under interface view";
>> [Authors] The grouping per-interface-config-attributes is used in the interface list. From the yang tree view, it is indented to interface.
> 
> Will the current text be clear to readers?  In other words, will readers know that "interface view" refers to the interface entries in the YANG tree diagrams in Sections 3.1 and 3.2?  If it might not be clear to some readers, would it help to update as follows?
> 
> "'config' attributes as shown under the 'interfaces' entries
>  in the tree diagrams in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.";
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> Regarding this item and your reply:
> 
>>> b) We do not see "source-list" used anywhere else in this document.
>>> The only RFC we could find that defines "source-list" is RFC 4045,
>>> which does not appear to be applicable to this document.  Is it
>>> possible that "source-list" should be "source-address" as used in
>>> this document?  If not, will "source-list" be clear to readers?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> enum "include" {
>>>  description
>>>    "In include mode, reception of packets sent
>>>     to the specified multicast address is requested
>>>     only from those IP source addresses listed in the
>>>     source-list parameter";
>>> }
>>> enum "exclude" {
>>>  description
>>>    "In exclude mode, reception of packets sent
>>>     to the given multicast address is requested
>>>     from all IP source addresses except those
>>>     listed in the source-list parameter.";
>> [Authors] The source-list means not only one source address, so maybe using souce-list is better.
> 
> We do not follow this reply.  Will the current text be clear to readers?  If not, would it help to update as follows?
> 
> enum "include" {
>   description
>     "In include mode, reception of packets sent
>      to the specified multicast address is requested
>      only from those IP source addresses listed in the
>      'source' list parameter";
> }
> enum "exclude" {
>   description
>     "In exclude mode, reception of packets sent
>      to the given multicast address is requested
>      from all IP source addresses except those
>      listed in the 'source' list parameter.";
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> Regarding this item and your reply:
> 
>> c) Are some words missing from these two description clauses?  If the
>> suggested text is not correct, please clarify "membership information
>> that joined on the interface".
>> 
>> Original:
>> description
>>  "Multicast group membership information
>>   that joined on the interface.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "Multicast group membership information
>>   that joined on the interface.";
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> description
>>  "Information regarding multicast groups permitted to connect
>>   to the interface.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "Information regarding multicast groups permitted to connect
>>   to the interface."; -->
>> [Authors] Maybe the suggested text is not correct.
>> The list group contains group-addresses attached under the interface and all the other related information with the group-address, which including up-time, filter-mode, source.  
>> The description of list group needs to contain the information above.
> 
> Apologies; we do not follow this reply either.  Will the current text be clear to readers?  If it might be unclear to some readers, please provide clarifying text, using the "OLD (current)" and "NEW" format.
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> Regarding this item and your reply:
> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  The "YANG Module Names" registry is
>> defined in RFC 6020 and not in RFC 7950.  Please see Section 14 of
>> RFC 6020 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020) and
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/> if you have any
>> questions regarding this update.
>> 
>> Original:
>> This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
>> Names registry [RFC7950]:
>> 
>> Currently:
>> This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG
>> Module Names" registry [RFC6020]: -->
>> 
>> [Authors] RFC6020 defines YANG, and RFC7950 defines YANG 1.1. I saw the section 6.2 of RFC9166 cites RFC7950. Maybe both of them are ok?
> 
> Section 6.2 of RFC 9166 does indeed cite RFC 7950, but the citation in that document is incorrect.  Rather than using the erroneous citation in this document as well, we suggest citing RFC 6020 but not RFC 7950, per IANA.
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-rfcdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-auth48diff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff2.html
> 
> Thanks again for your help and patience!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
>> On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:33 PM, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks a lot for your comments. Please check my reply inline.
>> 
>> BR/Hongji
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
>> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:34 AM
>> To: Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9398 <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10> for your review
>> 
>> Authors and *AD,
>> 
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 
>> *AD, please review question #7 and let us know if the current text is approved or if further changes are needed.
>> 
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We updated the document title as follows.  Please let us know any objections.
>> 
>> Original:
>> A YANG Data Model for IGMP/MLD Proxy
>> 
>> Currently:
>> A YANG Data Model for IGMP and Multicast  Listener Discovery (MLD) Proxy Devices -->
>> 
>> [Authors] Maybe it is better to add full name of IGMP.
>>                 A YANG Data Model for Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Proxy Devices
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
>> [Authors] IGMP Proxy, MLD Proxy, YANG
>> 
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1.3:  This sentence was difficult to follow.
>> We updated it per RFC 9128.  Please let us know any objections.
>> 
>> Original:
>> In this document, names of data nodes, and other data model objects
>> are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from the
>> context in which YANG module each name is defined.
>> 
>> Currently:
>> In this document, names of data nodes and other data model objects
>> are often used without a prefix, as long as the context clearly
>> indicates the YANG module in which each name is defined. -->
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following question and comment about the
>> YANG module in Section 4.
>> 
>> a)  Note that the YANG module has been updated per the formatting option of pyang.  
>> Please review the diff file of the YANG module at
>> "https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-ietf-igmp-mld-proxy-rfcdiff.html"
>> and let us know any concerns.
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> b) FYI: There were 2 lines greater than 72 characters in the module, so we updated
>> the text as follows to make it fit within the limit (note that there are two instances). 
>> 
>> Original:
>> when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'igmp-mld-proxy:igmp-proxy')" {
>> 
>> Current:
>> when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, "
>>    + "'igmp-mld-proxy:mld-proxy')" {
>> -->
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:
>> 
>> a) Please clarify the meaning of "under interface view".
>> 
>> Original:
>> description "Config attributes under interface view";
>> [Authors] The grouping per-interface-config-attributes is used in the interface list. From the yang tree view, it is indented to interface.
>> 
>> b) We do not see "source-list" used anywhere else in this document.
>> The only RFC we could find that defines "source-list" is RFC 4045,
>> which does not appear to be applicable to this document.  Is it
>> possible that "source-list" should be "source-address" as used in
>> this document?  If not, will "source-list" be clear to readers?
>> 
>> Original:
>> enum "include" {
>>  description
>>    "In include mode, reception of packets sent
>>     to the specified multicast address is requested
>>     only from those IP source addresses listed in the
>>     source-list parameter";
>> }
>> enum "exclude" {
>>  description
>>    "In exclude mode, reception of packets sent
>>     to the given multicast address is requested
>>     from all IP source addresses except those
>>     listed in the source-list parameter.";
>> [Authors] The source-list means not only one source address, so maybe using souce-list is better.
>> 
>> c) Are some words missing from these two description clauses?  If the
>> suggested text is not correct, please clarify "membership information
>> that joined on the interface".
>> 
>> Original:
>> description
>>  "Multicast group membership information
>>   that joined on the interface.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "Multicast group membership information
>>   that joined on the interface.";
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> description
>>  "Information regarding multicast groups permitted to connect
>>   to the interface.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "Information regarding multicast groups permitted to connect
>>   to the interface."; -->
>> [Authors] Maybe the suggested text is not correct.
>> The list group contains group-addresses attached under the interface and all the other related information with the group-address, which including up-time, filter-mode, source.  
>> The description of list group needs to contain the information above.
>> 
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  We find this entry a bit difficult to
>> follow.  As it appears to indicate that two parameters are listed
>> below the "Under ..." line, may we add a vertical space to make this
>> information easier to read?
>> 
>> Original:
>> Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:/
>> igmp-mld-proxy:igmp-proxy
>> igmp-mld-proxy:mld-proxy
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:/
>> 
>>   igmp-mld-proxy:igmp-proxy
>>   igmp-mld-proxy:mld-proxy -->
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Authors and *[AD]:  It appears that this
>> document does not define any RPC operations (as mentioned on
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>),
>> but please confirm. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  The "YANG Module Names" registry is
>> defined in RFC 6020 and not in RFC 7950.  Please see Section 14 of
>> RFC 6020 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020) and
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/> if you have any
>> questions regarding this update.
>> 
>> Original:
>> This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
>> Names registry [RFC7950]:
>> 
>> Currently:
>> This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG
>> Module Names" registry [RFC6020]: -->
>> 
>> [Authors] RFC6020 defines YANG, and RFC7950 defines YANG 1.1. I saw the section 6.2 of RFC9166 cites RFC7950. Maybe both of them are ok?
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Informative References:  RFC 8407 is not cited anywhere
>> in this document.  Please let us know where it should be cited.
>> 
>> Original:
>> [RFC8407] A. Bierman, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
>>          Documents Containing YANG Data Models", RFC 8407, October
>>          2018. -->
>> [Authors] You can remove it. Thanks.
>> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>> online Style Guide at
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> 
>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] The following term was used inconsistently in this
>> document.  We chose to use the latter form.  Please let us know any
>> objections.
>> 
>> proxy / Proxy (per more frequent usage in this document) -->
>> [Authors] ok
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb/kc
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 26, 2023, at 5:31 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2023/04/26
>> 
>> RFC Author(s):
>> --------------
>> 
>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>> 
>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>> 
>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>> your approval.
>> 
>> Planning your review 
>> ---------------------
>> 
>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>> 
>> *  RFC Editor questions
>> 
>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>> follows:
>> 
>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>> 
>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>> 
>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
>> 
>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>> 
>> *  Content 
>> 
>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> - contact information
>> - references
>> 
>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>> 
>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>> 
>> *  Semantic markup
>> 
>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>> 
>> *  Formatted output
>> 
>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> 
>> 
>> Submitting changes
>> ------------------
>> 
>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
>> include:
>> 
>> *  your coauthors
>> 
>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>> 
>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>>    IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>>    responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> 
>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>>    to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>>    list:
>> 
>>   *  More info:
>>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>> 
>>   *  The archive itself:
>>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>> 
>>   *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>>      of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>      If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>>      have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>>      [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>>      its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>> 
>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> 
>> An update to the provided XML file
>> — OR —
>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>> 
>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>> 
>> OLD:
>> old text
>> 
>> NEW:
>> new text
>> 
>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> 
>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>> 
>> 
>> Approving for publication
>> --------------------------
>> 
>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>> 
>> 
>> Files 
>> -----
>> 
>> The files are available here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff1.html
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9398
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9398 (draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10)
>> 
>> Title            : A YANG Data Model for IGMP/MLD Proxy
>> Author(s)        : H. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Liu, M. Panchanathan, M. Sivakumar
>> WG Chair(s)      : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride
>> 
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>> 
>> 
>