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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Hongji.

We have updated your address per your note below.

The latest files are posted here:

   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-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff2.html

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On May 10, 2023, at 7:34 PM, Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
> Regarding my address, please update as below. Thanks a lot!
> 
>   Hongji Zhao
>   Ericsson (China) Communications Company Ltd.
>   Ericsson Tower, No. 5 Lize East Street
>   Beijing
>   100102
>   China
> 
> BR/Hongji
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:14 AM
> To: Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9398 <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10> for your review
> 
> Hi, Hongji.  No worries, and thank you for the email.
> 
> We have updated this document per your notes below.
> 
> 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-lastdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-lastrfcdiff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9398-xmldiff2.html
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On May 8, 2023, at 12:16 AM, Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry for late reply. Please check inline.
>> 
>> BR/Hongji
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 6:44 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: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9398 
>> <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10> for your review
>> 
>> 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.";
>> [Authors on May 8, 2023]  What do you think of the update as below?
>>                                               NEW:
>>                                              "'config' attributes as under an interface entry."  
>> 
>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> 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.";
>> [Authors on May 8, 2023] We think that your new update is ok. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> [Authors on May 8, 2023]  What do you think of the update as below?
>>                                              NEW:
>>                                              List of the multicast groups in the membership database built on this upstream interface.
>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> [Authors on May 8, 2023]  Accepted
>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>