Re: [pim] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E882C120348; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 BYummQ6olh9S; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x130.google.com (mail-it1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB015120343; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x130.google.com with SMTP id z4so16706608itc.3; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o0qrceNJj1Li9dV2z47sIaUpz6Fe3/MS8gGkVnGEm5E=; b=JgpkvIcIOhOt6Sqw/9UawrdqWu7PzE13D9wpuO4u0KT6L5sbUE3AqlBTw7dc4sl8le vBZAkDQehFiHVMnqEMp8gcgltni/l+N/03RDwaCtMmy1Q9/Xs40EKEJZIi0GsvzLZjo+ 61TwxY//Tuzago5t3NwSdNnaKHwfChNXgUwNzcHjI4fBLrcwajT3fnN7PVN7xITYbXMI RRizu5IYtrE/DR9g4/1QSEm3QJo6au0FlftryDkdUnw1JN7rf5tR9mbjztJK4lFhXdTM vwgTPWlFTUFUxURpzOCq4BrWjCB8YXzaYh/suwlo4LaaHz22Db19oKzpGcdbMZBuuuEi ai+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o0qrceNJj1Li9dV2z47sIaUpz6Fe3/MS8gGkVnGEm5E=; b=R8le2tKwmd8OAqgL0i3k3PUJIY1irTjdDlYQnvaEzoyXFyUr1p6xznVsDvzLUp5m0W nBG4ONrns4xk8xiSJFmnjylcRfFr2L11+ZOP100Uqks+rMW1FHTWVSnEZpOUNhotGJ+B x7lt2Y1pFdvJmWqlZwGCRK4XNOeRNTZx12BiY+Dk8RDmRe4m5BmaMM9s1kbiVliU59GC oYrrSMDtEX1scv2AtaDAr973oSk4dUV92NCw/wyBEtr8c3jP9UWw/w2Dk0kSOlroTGcI q5WNq6Fw7z+Mlp1j+Hk4wbSdcb9w8s5XSYJ00ORABZz2DhnzZcjFCWqktRL2ntq2M9tb jwuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrGJ105myIpl5mfjOs5Q94xlyCxUtoYN4B+d+po4CKpBwIDO7c YiOHu5IffY0xWDW7cs41MBye3VE7PSRtXKN5ZkDjGR0t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz2Wg8p5BT0mtwRI6qFAI//NObIU1GpOWEAmhASehiST04ncXVZGxXqbwjO3i3q/9fUM2CRvuOU8K5fYd3gAv0=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:9f1a:: with SMTP id z26mr11502646jal.133.1556550665943; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B71955C29713E@DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B71955C29713E@DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:10:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQiba4jGX7VXnXLm9+dvD+ECj5RVhmdL=Q9agrDA-XcHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000084be160587acb14a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/6A708AdbHKic8u8EZ-B4GlE6w6Y>
Subject: Re: [pim] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:11:10 -0000

Hi Jia,

We have posted the updated
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11 to address
these issues.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:28 AM Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com>; wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
> see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
> Reviewer: Jia He
> Review Date: 2019-02-08
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-08
> Intended Status: Standard Track
>
>
>
> *Summary:*
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
> be considered prior to publication.
>
>
>
> *Comments:*
>
> The draft defines a YANG data model to configure and manage IGMP and MLD
> protocols. The model itself is clear. But some clarification are
> appreciated in the scope description.
>
>
>
> *Major Issues:*
>
> No major issues found.
>
>
>
> *Minor Issues:*
>
> No minor issues found.
>
>
>
> *Nits:*
>
> 1)      In Section 1.3, the sentence before Table 1 seems not completed.
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

> 2)      Section 2.1 says “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.” It is not clear whether it is “not
> all IGMP and MLD features” or “not all configuration…” I assume the first
> one but it still doesn’t give much information of the scope. Is it possible
> to briefly describe what are not included?
>
[Xufeng]: Rephrased the paragraph to clarify. The following link provides
the survey on various implement ions.

*https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pim/wiki/yang
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pim/wiki/yang>*

The parameters implemented only once are not included in the model. The
examples are:
other-querier-present-time
send-router-alert
passive interface
drop igmpv1
drop igmpv2/mldv1

Sections 2.1.1. and 2.1.2. have been added to described these parameters.

> 3)      Section 2.2 mentions “*basic subsets* of the IGMP and MLD
> protocols”. Is the “basic subsets” something that has consensus in IETF?
> Otherwise, better to explain what they are in this document.
>
[Xufeng]: Yes, as summarized in:


*https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pim/wiki/yang
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pim/wiki/yang>*



>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Jia
>
>
>
>
>