Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 29 May 2019 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9CF12004F; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=cooperw.in header.b=QsS01UUl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=BDqD5qAc
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 w18r-0sfBPls; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 629D112006E; Wed, 29 May 2019 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E10C2228E; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 May 2019 15:04:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm3; bh=2G9IJjUPIedClXW6h6ze93u narZyjWKtvpWY6I3N8Ps=; b=QsS01UUlIBlgNPw7gL5+o7diUzLe1r/bVLQSn97 6nPcYGJY94PG0TVUMHm1Sr9n9g3sfPrXQbjKvHPjPAWPC+c9h34ThiaeMGeTwABk HsKUKC/1lwn+yvkTPRBqUlwmKGhpi5paV9JMH6oIc7kurRPsdSljsvChgbyuVnK/ wz+b3gsLnnPObNPYudTLpyBzrAnLa/nDTlyhZw4lxcBdCvh+q252W4Sxbccx1qIM fOGghHZGRogK8GaMoHTWKAKVxUVkuNRXeqODxZAwivssJm7cyNTCBHc/JGJ8i+lh zEaKTp859uSw7t8sPsW4UkyNgnVJACPLZUWgBrEJgBNs5XA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=2G9IJj UPIedClXW6h6ze93unarZyjWKtvpWY6I3N8Ps=; b=BDqD5qAcJFhkgETursOxnS /sGONofv6zNCM395GsA38T4sQXzwg7p5GMjs3BHM4SE3anKjCQMArjIG4aQEK+v4 hXWRdG5I7vcycD+X8mxoo1CK9O7WC2fupKpHGJq16zKlfmmOKJb/dKuabLi46pGA qsnLEz2rf2rFiud48b/DH3aZgSNv/McSWbpCGhPJWQ0DTXZfwLo3sqXDowO/DKKb 6JnSClPVjd3h6ogRRzJfV0h2l4UyvWXjfX3Tw7Jxz2v3xA9wR4bO1U2woVTLEepv 410Ic3lSgDp8x1euc66scwjlnwv1cbui2RVFpL0EpkOav4yEq5ERslA8wPwmJurw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:y9fuXNxGLgw3_-grwR9vLSIrPS-7Z0WrNyiFkD7NTYx9nLZWO8VFlQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvjedgudefhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuffgjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrg hinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrkeefnecurfgrrhgr mhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:y9fuXJnA2J-aNZSFai6z-vKU_SMmazJQlCGOjEmsoajP3f-eDW_-xw> <xmx:y9fuXKGAXhZs3OqJ-DD5wtdldBal6EI2ERIawFMl06Dit_eSmINfPA> <xmx:y9fuXBUKzXjilecbg6NPKUn8daPLo4qbkZ_m_OPpGVghSeumBJBSoA> <xmx:zNfuXCqEyDlDiABZYUdZ1C5GQ0n4pbx-TS3FYpaw2qeqWA1PDFVSyA>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.83]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 02E9C8005B; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:04:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <6639040D-253B-40B6-9804-537C7C0D43BA@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D575612F-2524-4719-99DA-340FA8E62150"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:04:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAEz6PPSTfPzucPJdCMgs=w0o47TJ5rTtOWSOvoaKQNtdTP1XQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Dale Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
References: <154942504962.32283.12889573821946189810@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEz6PPSTfPzucPJdCMgs=w0o47TJ5rTtOWSOvoaKQNtdTP1XQQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6WQzs60omgPmJlwKwarbwNSV-ug>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 19:04:50 -0000

Dale, thanks for your review. Xufeng, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Please disregard my ballot email — I missed this thread before balloting.

Alissa

> On Apr 29, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Dale,
> 
> Thanks for the review. We have posted the updated https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11> to address these issues.
> 
> Some details are in-line below.
> 
> Best regards,
> - Xufeng
> 
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM Dale Worley <worley@ariadne.com <mailto:worley@ariadne.com>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>;.
> 
> Document:  draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10
> Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
> Review Date:  2019-02-05
> IETF LC End Date:  2019-02-08
> IESG Telechat date:  not known
> 
> Summary:
> 
>    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
>    that should be fixed before publication.
> 
>    I do not have the expertise to review the contents of the Yang
>    module itself.  Fortunately, the Yang Doctor can review that.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>    This draft has a number of exposition issues that should be fixed.
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
>    configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
>    Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) devices.
> 
> Both here and in the Introduction, it would be better to say "devices
> that implement IGMP and MLD" or something like that, since IGMP and
> MLD are protocols, not classes of devices.
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    2. Design of Data model.......................................... 4
>       2.1. Scope of model .......................................... 4
>       2.2. Optional capabilities ................................... 4
>       2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy ................. 5
>    3. Module Structure ............................................. 5
>       3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state ................ 5
>       3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State ................. 8
> 
> It looks like the current style would capitalize "model",
> "capabilities", "state", etc.
> 
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 
>    This model will support
>    the core IGMP and MLD protocols, as well as many other features
>    mentioned in separate IGMP and MLD RFCs.
> 
> "will support" needs clarifying.  Does the model defined by this
> document "support many other features", or is this a prediction that
> the model will eventually be extended to do so?  Indeed, the
> Introduction should make a clear statement of what is and is not
> supported by this version of the model.
> [Xufeng]: Fixed. Should be present, not future.
> 
> 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
> 
>    Otherwise,
>    names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
> 
> The tail of this sentence is missing.
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> 
> 2. Design of Data model
> 2.1. Scope of model
> 
>    The model covers IGMPv1 [RFC1112], IGMPv2 [RFC2236], IGMPv3
>    [RFC3376] and MLDv1 [RFC2710], MLDv2 [RFC3810].
> 
> This should be stated in the Introduction as well.
> [Xufeng]: Added.
> 
>    The configuration of IGMP and MLD features, and the operational
>    state fields and RPC definitions are not all included in this
>    document of the data model.
> 
> As written, this says that the model covers some unspecified subset of
> IGMP and MLD features.  Is it possible to characterize what is
> included and what is not?  Otherwise, the reader would have to work
> through the model to check on every specific item they were interested
> in.
> [Xufeng]: This section has been expanded to describe these features.
> 
>    This model can be extended, though the
>    structure of what has been written may be taken as representative of
>    the structure of the whole model.
> 
> What does this mean?  Like any Yang model, this model can be extended,
> by anyone who chooses to do so.  But how does "what has been written"
> represent or constrain the structure of an extended model?
> [Xufeng]: Reworded.
> 
> 2.2. Optional capabilities
> 
>    The main design goals of
>    this document are that any major now-existing implementation may be
>    said to support the basic model, [...]
> 
> Probably more correct to say "[...] may be said to support the
> facilities described by the basic model [...]".
> [Xufeng]: Reworded.
> 
>    There is also value in widely-supported features being standardized,
>    to save work for individual vendors, [...]
> 
> And probably more importantly, so that the features can be accessed in
> a standardized way.
> [Xufeng]: Added such a phrase.
> 
> 2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy
> 
>    The current document contains IGMP and MLD as separate schema
>    branches in the structure. The reason for this is to make it easier
>    for implementations which may optionally choose to support specific
>    address families. And the names of objects may be different between
>    the IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD) address families.
> 
> It seems like the qualification of IGMP == IPv4 and MLD == IPv6 should
> be done in the first sentence rather than the last.
> [Xufeng]: Added clarification sentences at the beginning of this section.
> 
> 3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state
> 
> It seems like this section has a first part which applies to IGMP and
> MLD equally (though it only talks about IGMP), and a second part which
> is a summary of the IGMP module.  Perhaps they should be split into
> two sections?
> [Xufeng]: Moved the paragraphs common to both IGMP and MLD to Sec 3. Put IGMP specifics in Sec 3.1, and MLD specifics in Sec 3.2.
> 
>        Interface-global: Only including configuration data nodes that
>    IGMP configuration attributes are applicable to all the interfaces
>    whose interface-level corresponding attributes are not existing,
>    with same attributes' value for these interfaces.
> 
> This sentence seems to have either extra words or missing words.
> [Xufeng]: Rephrased.
> 
> "SSM" seems to show up a lot but isn't defined.  Is it part of IGMP/MLD?
> [Xufeng]: Added to Sec 1.1.
> 
> 3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State
> 3.3. IGMP and MLD RPC
> 
>    IGMP and MLD RPC clears the specified IGMP and MLD group membership.
> 
> This is awkwardly phrased.  Perhaps, "IGMP and MLD each have one RPC
> which clears the group membership [database? table?] for that
> protocol."
> [Xufeng]: Rephrased.
> 
> 4. IGMP and MLD YANG Modules
> 
> The use of empty lines isn't consistent in the module definition.
> [Xufeng]: Went through the module and fixed them.
> 
> 5. Security Considerations
> 
>    These subtrees are all under
> 
>    /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
>    /rt:control-plane-protocol/igmp:
> 
> Is the trailing "/igmp:" meaningful?
> 
> And parallel cases later in the section.  As far as I can see, "igmp:"
> etc. is part of the root node name of the subtree, not attached to
> the path above it.
> [Xufeng]: The “igmp” is meant to indicate the node under “control-plane-protocol”. The prefix “igmp:” before “global” and “interfaces” is the name space, but it should be “igmp-mld:” instead, because igmp and mld share the same module and name space. Fixed these tokens in the document.
> 
>    Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can adversely
>    affect the membership records of multicast routing subsystem on the
>    local device.
> 
> -- and some similar cases.  The scope of the phrase "these subtrees"
> is unclear.
> [Xufeng]: The phrase “these subtrees” indicates all the trees listed above. This paragraph is part of the template. Is it ok for us to modify this paragraph?
> 
> 6. IANA Considerations
> 
>     This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
>     registry [RFC3688]:
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-igmp-mld
> 
>    Registrant Contact: The IESG.
> 
>    XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> RFC 3688 section 3.2 includes:
> 
>    ns -- XML Namespaces [W3C.REC-xml-names] are named by a URI.  [...]
>       Thus, the
>       registered document will be either the specification or a
>       reference to it.  [...]
> 
> It seems to me that the "XML" field of this registration should be:
> 
>    XML: RFC XXXX
> 
> to provide the name of the registered specification of the namespace.
> [Xufeng]: Section 14 in [RFC6020] registers two URIs for the YANG and YIN XML namespaces in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. After it, all YANG modules currently use this format.
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art