Re: [pim] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your reply __

-éric

On 29/11/2022, 03:00, "Hongji Zhao" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Éric,

    Thanks a lot for your comments.
    Any kind of structure has pros and cons. Currently IGMP & MLD YANG model has been published as RFC 8652 and it has two separated trees. So we follow it in this document.
    We will update the document to use YANG in all uppercase in later version.

    BR/Hongji


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
    Sent: 2022年11月24日 23:37
    To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
    Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    Subject: Éric Vyncke's Abstain on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with COMMENT)

    Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: Abstain

    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
    for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang/



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08

    CC @evyncke

    Thank you for the work put into this document. As I cannot agree with the
    section 2.3, I am balloting ABSTAIN as it does not fit any DISCUSS criteria
    (which would be my personal choice).

    Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
    appreciated about my ABSTAIN), and one nit.

    Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
    the WG consensus *but* missing the justification of the intended status.

    I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

    Regards,

    -éric

    ## COMMENTS

    ### Section 2.3

    Having two different branches for MLD and IGMP can only lead to operational
    difficulties as two branches need to be handled. Operators won't have a easy
    way to manage both MLD and IGMP in the same network.

    I expressed *exactly* the same point for RFC 8652.

    Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a data model ?

    ## NITS

    ### Yang in uppercase

    Please use YANG in all uppercase (notably in the RFC title) as it is an acronym.

    ## Notes

    This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
    [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
    individual GitHub issues.

    [ICMF]: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-9faa09361356e426&q=1&e=b605428d-9a3f-4ce2-9049-2c631995eecd&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmnot%2Fietf-comments%2Fblob%2Fmain%2Fformat.md
    [ICT]: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-85de72c60dc0c7a6&q=1&e=b605428d-9a3f-4ce2-9049-2c631995eecd&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmnot%2Fietf-comments