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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Curious aspect. Quick superficial comment/question:

a) If this (duplication of structure) is seen to be a downside, then i would like
to point out that the original authors who choose to write the MLD spec (rfc2710)
not as IPv4+IPv6 specs but IPv6 specs only AND had to change the name AND the
numbering - initiated (IMHO) a whole ongoing series of pain with this duality and
confusions in the customer space (explain IGMPvN+1=MLDvN).

b) But, on the counterside: Does being consistent with this (separate IPv4/IPv6)
approach of the underlying protocols not honor the target spirit of those original
authors - and maybe even have upsides such as making life / operations
easier in an IPv6 only network ? Which i would guess is most likely the
core reason why MLD was written as it was.

Btw: i am firmly on a), but i can see how doing MLD separately was easier
and i do think it makes IPv6-only networks be easier too. So it seems logically
to proceed in this fashion... ?

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 07:36:38AM -0800, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> 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://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

-- 
---
[e-mail]