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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

It doesn't happen all that often but I agree with Toerless __ MLD and IGMP are separate protocols
 and vendors have implemented the configuration and management of them as such. It's not like
VRRPv3 where a single protocol is used for both address families. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 12/1/22, 9:12 AM, "pim on behalf of Toerless Eckert" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


    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]

    _______________________________________________
    pim mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim