Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06
<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Tue, 24 December 2019 07:22 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 6175C120C9A; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 23:22:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KBmWrhotP9pE; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 23:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59668120052; Mon, 23 Dec 2019 23:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 157722C6EEB592B67E45; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:22:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id xBO780pw021513; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:08:00 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:07:59 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:07:59 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5e01b94f7cc9f83b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201912241507598206021@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswRJGzW8rYtGdpeqvptndbabY2A2dvo_1-sUs9TVz9tPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAMMESswFDHY=14EBQxRczS=qTVDTx1EuqTkUT48_Py26bu=5Dw@mail.gmail.com, CAMMESswRJGzW8rYtGdpeqvptndbabY2A2dvo_1-sUs9TVz9tPg@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn xBO780pw021513
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/DH53ALC-l41_lPqZU0po2mHTVDU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 21:09:06 -0800
Subject: Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06
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, 24 Dec 2019 07:22:12 -0000
Hi Alvaro, Thank you very much for your reminder! We are doing the update work. We'd like to submit the new version as soon as possible. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:AlvaroRetana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 收件人:draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org>; 抄送人:pim-chairs@ietf.org <pim-chairs@ietf.org>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年12月24日 14:19 主 题 :Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim Hi! It has been almost 2 months since I sent out this review, and I haven’t heard anything back. I know that the document needs significant work — how is it going? Thanks! Alvaro. On October 23, 2019 at 12:17:03 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: I just finished reviewing this document. I don't have a lot of comments on the model itself (please see below), but the document needs significant work to live up to rfc8407 (Guidelines for YANG Documents) and the specific requirements mentioned there for YANG documents. In general, compare this document with draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang (which was written by almost the same author team). Items from rfc8407 that are not addressed in this document include: "A terminology section MUST be present if any terms are defined in the document or if any terms are imported from other documents." Is there no terminology defined in rfc3618 (or elsewhere) that is used in this document and useful to highlight? "If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document." "If the module or modules defined by the specification imports definitions from other modules...or are always implemented in conjunction with other modules, then those facts MUST be noted in the overview section.....Section 2.3 of [RFC8349] for an example of this overview section." The Security Considerations "MUST be patterned after the latest approved template (available at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>)." See also some comments on the Security Consideration section itself. "For every import or include statement that appears in a module contained in the specification that identifies a module in a separate document, a corresponding normative reference to that document MUST appear in the Normative References section." "For every normative reference statement that appears in a module contained in the specification that identifies a separate document, a corresponding normative reference to that document SHOULD appear in the Normative References section." "Each specification that defines one or more modules SHOULD contain usage examples, either throughout the document or in an appendix." Please also check idnits: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06.txt I will wait for a revision, and for any major issues identified inline before starting the IETF LC. Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] 2 PIM WG Xufeng. Liu 3 Internet-Draft Volta Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track Zheng. Zhang 5 Expires: October 25, 2019 ZTE Corporation 6 Anish. Peter 7 Individual contributor 8 Mahesh. Sivakumar 9 Juniper networks 10 Feng. Guo 11 Huawei Technologies 12 Pete. McAllister 13 Metaswitch Networks [nit] For all the authors, "The author's name (initial followed by family name)..." (rfc7322). ... 71 1. Introduction ... 78 This model is designed to be used along with other multicast YANG 79 models such as PIM, which are not covered in this document. [major] Is the PIM model required? I didn't find an indication in the model that other models were needed. [nit] A reference to the PIM model would be nice. 81 2. Design of the Data Model 83 This model imports and augments ietf-routing YANG model defined in 84 [RFC8349]. Both configuration data nodes and state data nodes of 85 [RFC8349] are augmented. The configuration data nodes cover global 86 configuration attributes and per peer configuration attributes. The 87 state data nodes include global, per peer, and source-active 88 information. The container "msdp" is the top level container in this 89 data model. The presence of this container is expected to enable 90 MSDP protocol functionality. No notification is defined in this 91 model. [nit] s/augments ietf-routing YANG model/augments the ietf-routing YANG model 93 module: ietf-msdp 94 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols: 95 +--rw msdp! 96 +--rw global 97 | +--rw tcp-connection-source? if:interface-ref 98 | +--rw default-peer* [peer-addr prefix-policy] {global-default-peer,global-default-peer-policy}? 99 | | +--rw peer-addr -> ./././peers/peer/address 100 | | +--rw prefix-policy string 101 | +--rw originating-rp 102 | | +--rw interface? if:interface-ref 103 | +--rw sa-filter 104 | | +--rw in? string 105 | | +--rw out? string [major] The use of "string" to point at the policy (for sa-filter, prefix-policy) caught my attention. Later the text says that "The definition of such a policy is outside the scope of this document." Ok...draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model (Routing Policy Model) does define the policy -- why is that work not used/referenced? I noticed that there is an unused reference to I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which was added in -05, when the "out of scope" text was also added..... ... 111 | +--rw authentication 112 | | +--rw (authentication-type)? 113 | | +--:(key-chain) {peer-key-chain}? 114 | | | +--rw key-chain? key-chain:key-chain-ref 115 | | +--:(password) 116 | | +--rw key? string 117 | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? identityref [major] rfc3618 only requires Keyed MD5 support...which I assume corresponds to the "password" option. Is that correct? Is the MSDP operation with a key-chain specified somewhere else? Are we missing a reference (in the model)? 118 | +--rw enable? boolean {peer-admin-enable}? 119 | +--rw tcp-connection-source? if:interface-ref [minor] Maybe it's my poor understanding of YANG... It's not clear to me whether the global configuration for tcp-connection-source has precedence over the peer-specific configuration or not. Given that tcp-connection-source is optional, and that several of the parameters below depend on the peer configuration, it seems to me that some information may not be present if only the global piece is configured. [Again, this comment may simply reflect my misunderstanding of YANG. If that is the case, just tell me and we can move on. :-) ] ... 212 5. MSDP RPC 214 The RPC part is used to define some useful and ordinary operations of 215 protocol management. Network manager can delete all the information 216 from a given peer by using the clear-peer rpc. And network manager 217 can delete a given SA cache information by clear-sa-cache rpc. [nit] s/manager/managers [major] There is no NMDA-related statement. 219 6. MSDP YANG model [major] Add text extracting all the reference statements (to be listed in the References secion): "This module references..." All these should be Normative. 221 <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-msdp.yang" [major] From rfc8407: The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying the file name specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC7950]. The name string form that includes the revision date SHOULD be used. The revision date MUST match the date used in the most recent revision of the module. IOW, the file name should be ietf-msdp@2019-04-23.yang Please make sure this matches the date in the revision statement below. ... 239 import ietf-routing { 240 prefix "rt"; 241 reference "RFC8022"; [major] s/8022/8349 242 } 244 import ietf-interfaces { 245 prefix "if"; 246 reference "RFC7223"; [major] s/7223/8343 247 } 249 import ietf-ip { 250 prefix "ip"; 251 reference "RFC7277"; [major] s/7277/8344 ... 264 organization 265 "IETF PIM(Protocols for IP Multicast) Working Group"; [nit] s/PIM(Protocols/PIM (Protocols ... 289 description 290 "The module defines the YANG definitions for MSDP. 292 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons 293 identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. 295 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or 296 without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and 297 subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified 298 BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's 299 Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 300 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 301 This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 3618; see 302 the RFC itself for full legal notices."; [major] "this YANG module is part of RFC 3618" No, it is part of this RFC-to-be; use "RFC XXXX" instead. 304 revision 2018-10-20 { 305 description 306 "Initial revision."; 307 reference 308 "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for MSDP. 309 RFC 3618: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP). 310 RFC 4624: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) MIB"; 311 } [major] The only reference should be RFC XXXX. The others are not where the module is included... ... 477 container originating-rp { 478 description 479 "The container of Originating RP."; 480 leaf interface { 481 type if:interface-ref; 482 must "/if:interfaces/if:interface[if:name = current()]/" 483 + "ip:ipv4" { 484 description 485 "The interface must have IPv4 enabled."; 486 } 487 description 488 "Reference to an entry in the global interface 489 list. 490 IP address of the interface is used in the RP field of 491 an SA message entry. When Anycast RPs are used, all 492 RPs use the same IP address. This parameter can be 493 used to define a unique IP address for the RP of each 494 MSDP peer. 495 By default, the software uses the RP address of the 496 local system."; [nit] s/address of the interface is used/address of the interface used ... 555 container timer { 556 description "Timer attributes."; 557 leaf connect-retry-interval { 558 type uint16; 559 units seconds; 560 default 30; 561 description "Peer timer for connect-retry, 562 SHOULD be set to 30 seconds."; 563 } [major] BCP14 is not referenced, nor is the template used. This is the only instance of rfc2119 keywords that I found. If you want to keep the Normative language, then please include the template and references. ... 591 uses ttl-threshold; [?] The previous entry (line 510) reads: uses ttl-threshold { if-feature global-ttl-threshold; } Should this mention of ttl-threshold be similar? ... 639 leaf is-default-peer { 640 type boolean; 641 config false; 642 description "If this peer is default peer."; [minor] s/If this peer is default peer./'true' if this peer is a default peer. ... 738 grouping ttl-threshold { 739 description "Attribute to configure TTL threshold."; 740 leaf ttl-threshold { 741 type uint8 { 742 range 1.255; 743 } 744 description "Maximum number of hops data packets can 745 traverse before being dropped."; 746 } 747 } // sa-ttl-threshold [nit] s/sa-ttl-threshold/ttl-threshold ... 806 list peer { 807 key "address"; 808 description 809 "List of MSDP peers."; 810 leaf address { 811 type inet:ipv4-address; 812 description 813 "The address of peer"; [nit] s/address of peer/address of the peer ... 955 7. Security Considerations [major] Please update this section with the appropriate references (using the latest template): https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines ... 970 There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are 971 writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the 972 default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable 973 in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) 974 to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative 975 effect on network operations. For MSDP, the ability to modify MSDP 976 configuration will allow the unexpected MSDP peer establishment and 977 unexpected SA information learning and advertisement. The "password" 978 field is also a sensitive readable configuration, the unauthorized 979 reading function may lead to the password leaking. The security 980 considerations of MSDP [RFC3618] are applicable. [major] Please follow draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang (draft-ietf-ospf-yang is also a good example) in calling out specifics...before the Security ADs use a DISCUSS. [major] Information about the readable nodes is missing. ... 989 8. IANA Considerations 991 The IANA is requested to assign two new URIs from the IETF XML 992 registry ([RFC3688]). Authors are suggesting the following URI: [nit] s/([RFC3688])/[RFC3688] 994 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-msdp 996 Registrant Contact: PIM WG [minor] s/PIM WG/The IESG 998 XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace 1000 This document also requests one new YANG module name in the YANG 1001 Module Names registry ([RFC6020]) with the following suggestion: [nit] s/([RFC6020])/[RFC6020] ... 1022 11. Normative References 1024 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis] 1025 Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG 1026 Data Model Documents", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20 1027 (work in progress), March 2018. == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis has been published as RFC 8407 [minor] This reference (and the one to rfc6087) are not used. ... 1047 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1048 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 1049 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 1050 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ... 1070 [RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration 1071 Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, 1072 DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012, 1073 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341) ... 1079 [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 1080 Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014, 1081 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7223 (Obsoleted by RFC 8343) 1083 [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", 1084 RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014, 1085 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7277 (Obsoleted by RFC 8344) 1087 [RFC8022] Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing 1088 Management", RFC 8022, DOI 10.17487/RFC8022, November 1089 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8022>. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8022 (Obsoleted by RFC 8349)
- [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 zhang.zheng
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 Alvaro Retana