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

[[e-mail]]

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 -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->


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. -->


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.

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')" {
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:

a) Please clarify the meaning of "under interface view".

Original:
 description "Config attributes under interface view";

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.";

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."; -->


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 -->


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]: -->


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. -->


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. -->


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) -->


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