Re: [pim] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 23 October 2018 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 4795E128766; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 e4VTOhm3-TWO; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 091E612D4EC; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=36572; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540328407; x=1541538007; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=PF/uFMeN1uLYbCygwfOrveE9CuVN7d3pnKFJJpb3yzk=; b=atF/pYlVFgO2K2Oz5OocWKeA5miWKdOsrpSidgcz+Y9kOolL9m5EnHQI 8gyhub0/IxpUZe8gBlky07M70VvmiW3HVXYmj/6lNXCM/q4aVPe6bp4Gg 8LVpwPM4leyelzRDQY/eTpdcSRfaxbWHYFMxqbZPbz/nwmbNGlPUbFN2Z Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAABxi89b/4gNJK1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ13Zn8oCoNriBiMHYINlxWBegsBASyEQAIXg3chNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtKIU6AQEBBCNWEAIBBgIRAwECIQEJAgICMB0IAgQOBYMhAYEdZI0Cm02BLoU7hGSLYheBQT+BOB+CTIUegmMxggQiAohvd4RRFYV9igcJApByF4FSjl6JKY0bAhEUgSYdOIFVcBVlAYJBCZBOb4EoiTorgQEBgR4BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,417,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="460364635"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Oct 2018 20:59:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9NKxr9g012275 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:59:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:59:53 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:59:53 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
CC: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05
Thread-Index: AQHUZkNsLOM6Zagayk61DqKTE7CU6qUkWsPAgAECmYCABrc98IABVlMA
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:59:52 +0000
Message-ID: <59F2B50B-BEEB-4A41-A9C1-A225D43CEF96@cisco.com>
References: <B7E291AA-E083-4D86-B9A7-5A8400714179@cisco.com> <VI1PR07MB4192189BF36A749AED4D497396F80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <EA46E761-9F3F-4A53-AB96-E8CFCDCE5CCE@cisco.com> <VI1PR07MB4192AF7D59CFECB08B4C3F9996F50@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB4192AF7D59CFECB08B4C3F9996F50@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_59F2B50BBEEB4A41A9C1A225D43CEF96ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/7zPagKPAKHwV1lBHlhCLoD--EQM>
Subject: Re: [pim] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:00:09 -0000

Hi Hongji,

Inline.

From: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
Date: Monday, October 22, 2018 at 10:16 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05

Hi Reshad,

Regarding the main issues/questions:

  *     igmp-snooping-instances (mld- also) are top level containers, I believe they should be under rt:control-plane-protocol (RFC8349). I should have raised this in the previous review.
        ----I would like to change the structure like this. What do you think of that?
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:
                    +--rw igmp-snooping-instance* [name]
                             +--rw name                                 string
                        ...
                    +--rw mld-snooping-instance* [name]
                               +--rw name                                 string
                ...

<RR> Looks good to me. So you’ll 2 new identities, 1 for MLD instance and 1 for IGMP snooping?

Minor comments, suggestions and nits:
-              Leaf exclude-lite, in description should there an explanation or reference of what exclude lite means?
            ------------- I would like to change the description like this. What do you think of that?
                     leaf exclude-lite {
                               …
                               description
                                 "Track the Lightweight IGMPv3 and MLDv2 protocol report";
                               reference "RFC5790";
                     }
<RR> Good with me.

-              Grouping statistics-sent-received:
4.            Counter names, e.g. “pim” is too short, it should be something along the lines of num-pim-messages or num-pim.
-------------Is  pim-hello ok? Here we just want to count the pim hello packet which is related to multicast router interface.
              +--ro statistics
    |              +--ro received
    |              |  +--ro query?                  yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro membership-report-v1?   yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro membership-report-v2?   yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro membership-report-v3?   yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro leave?                  yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro non-member-leave?       yang:counter64
    |              |  +--ro pim-hello?              yang:counter64

<RR> I would personally have used a more explicit name such as num-pim-hello (likewise for other counters), because pim-hello does not clearly indicate that it’s a counter. But I don’t feel strongly enough about this to object to what you propose above.

-              RPCs clear-xxx-snooping-groups, rename to clear-xxx-snooping-cache (as per description)?
              ----------------what about modify the description? I think clear-xxx-snooping-groups is better.
                                rpc clear-igmp-snooping-groups {
                                 if-feature rpc-clear-groups;
                                  description
                                   "Clear the specified IGMP snooping group.";
  input {
…
 <RR> I’ll defer to PIM WG to decide whether groups is the appropriate term.

-              Examples (Appendix A)
2.            Were the examples validated with a tool? You can use yanglib
-------------- I used json-yang-master to validate the examples, but didn’t use libyang.
                How to use libyang? Do you mean the yanglint?  Do you have some example about it?
<RR> If you used a tool to validate the examples, then good enough, you don’t need to use libyang.

Thanks for putting up with my reviews ☺

Regards,
Reshad.


Regarding other comments I have addressed and I will update the draft together with the comments above.  Thanks a lot!


BR/Hongji
赵宏吉