Re: [pim] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Dale, thanks for your review. Xufeng, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Please disregard my ballot email — I missed this thread before balloting.

Alissa

> On Apr 29, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dale,
> 
> Thanks for the review. We have posted the updated https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11> to address these issues.
> 
> Some details are in-line below.
> 
> Best regards,
> - Xufeng
> 
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM Dale Worley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
> 
> Document:  draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10
> Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
> Review Date:  2019-02-05
> IETF LC End Date:  2019-02-08
> IESG Telechat date:  not known
> 
> Summary:
> 
>    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
>    that should be fixed before publication.
> 
>    I do not have the expertise to review the contents of the Yang
>    module itself.  Fortunately, the Yang Doctor can review that.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>    This draft has a number of exposition issues that should be fixed.
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
>    configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
>    Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) devices.
> 
> Both here and in the Introduction, it would be better to say "devices
> that implement IGMP and MLD" or something like that, since IGMP and
> MLD are protocols, not classes of devices.
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    2. Design of Data model.......................................... 4
>       2.1. Scope of model .......................................... 4
>       2.2. Optional capabilities ................................... 4
>       2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy ................. 5
>    3. Module Structure ............................................. 5
>       3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state ................ 5
>       3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State ................. 8
> 
> It looks like the current style would capitalize "model",
> "capabilities", "state", etc.
> 
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> 
> 1. Introduction
> 
>    This model will support
>    the core IGMP and MLD protocols, as well as many other features
>    mentioned in separate IGMP and MLD RFCs.
> 
> "will support" needs clarifying.  Does the model defined by this
> document "support many other features", or is this a prediction that
> the model will eventually be extended to do so?  Indeed, the
> Introduction should make a clear statement of what is and is not
> supported by this version of the model.
> [Xufeng]: Fixed. Should be present, not future.
> 
> 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
> 
>    Otherwise,
>    names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
> 
> The tail of this sentence is missing.
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
> 
> 2. Design of Data model
> 2.1. Scope of model
> 
>    The model covers IGMPv1 [RFC1112], IGMPv2 [RFC2236], IGMPv3
>    [RFC3376] and MLDv1 [RFC2710], MLDv2 [RFC3810].
> 
> This should be stated in the Introduction as well.
> [Xufeng]: Added.
> 
>    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.
> 
> As written, this says that the model covers some unspecified subset of
> IGMP and MLD features.  Is it possible to characterize what is
> included and what is not?  Otherwise, the reader would have to work
> through the model to check on every specific item they were interested
> in.
> [Xufeng]: This section has been expanded to describe these features.
> 
>    This model can be extended, though the
>    structure of what has been written may be taken as representative of
>    the structure of the whole model.
> 
> What does this mean?  Like any Yang model, this model can be extended,
> by anyone who chooses to do so.  But how does "what has been written"
> represent or constrain the structure of an extended model?
> [Xufeng]: Reworded.
> 
> 2.2. Optional capabilities
> 
>    The main design goals of
>    this document are that any major now-existing implementation may be
>    said to support the basic model, [...]
> 
> Probably more correct to say "[...] may be said to support the
> facilities described by the basic model [...]".
> [Xufeng]: Reworded.
> 
>    There is also value in widely-supported features being standardized,
>    to save work for individual vendors, [...]
> 
> And probably more importantly, so that the features can be accessed in
> a standardized way.
> [Xufeng]: Added such a phrase.
> 
> 2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy
> 
>    The current document contains IGMP and MLD as separate schema
>    branches in the structure. The reason for this is to make it easier
>    for implementations which may optionally choose to support specific
>    address families. And the names of objects may be different between
>    the IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD) address families.
> 
> It seems like the qualification of IGMP == IPv4 and MLD == IPv6 should
> be done in the first sentence rather than the last.
> [Xufeng]: Added clarification sentences at the beginning of this section.
> 
> 3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state
> 
> It seems like this section has a first part which applies to IGMP and
> MLD equally (though it only talks about IGMP), and a second part which
> is a summary of the IGMP module.  Perhaps they should be split into
> two sections?
> [Xufeng]: Moved the paragraphs common to both IGMP and MLD to Sec 3. Put IGMP specifics in Sec 3.1, and MLD specifics in Sec 3.2.
> 
>        Interface-global: Only including configuration data nodes that
>    IGMP configuration attributes are applicable to all the interfaces
>    whose interface-level corresponding attributes are not existing,
>    with same attributes' value for these interfaces.
> 
> This sentence seems to have either extra words or missing words.
> [Xufeng]: Rephrased.
> 
> "SSM" seems to show up a lot but isn't defined.  Is it part of IGMP/MLD?
> [Xufeng]: Added to Sec 1.1.
> 
> 3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State
> 3.3. IGMP and MLD RPC
> 
>    IGMP and MLD RPC clears the specified IGMP and MLD group membership.
> 
> This is awkwardly phrased.  Perhaps, "IGMP and MLD each have one RPC
> which clears the group membership [database? table?] for that
> protocol."
> [Xufeng]: Rephrased.
> 
> 4. IGMP and MLD YANG Modules
> 
> The use of empty lines isn't consistent in the module definition.
> [Xufeng]: Went through the module and fixed them.
> 
> 5. Security Considerations
> 
>    These subtrees are all under
> 
>    /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
>    /rt:control-plane-protocol/igmp:
> 
> Is the trailing "/igmp:" meaningful?
> 
> And parallel cases later in the section.  As far as I can see, "igmp:"
> etc. is part of the root node name of the subtree, not attached to
> the path above it.
> [Xufeng]: The “igmp” is meant to indicate the node under “control-plane-protocol”. The prefix “igmp:” before “global” and “interfaces” is the name space, but it should be “igmp-mld:” instead, because igmp and mld share the same module and name space. Fixed these tokens in the document.
> 
>    Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can adversely
>    affect the membership records of multicast routing subsystem on the
>    local device.
> 
> -- and some similar cases.  The scope of the phrase "these subtrees"
> is unclear.
> [Xufeng]: The phrase “these subtrees” indicates all the trees listed above. This paragraph is part of the template. Is it ok for us to modify this paragraph?
> 
> 6. IANA Considerations
> 
>     This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
>     registry [RFC3688]:
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-igmp-mld
> 
>    Registrant Contact: The IESG.
> 
>    XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
> 
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> RFC 3688 section 3.2 includes:
> 
>    ns -- XML Namespaces [W3C.REC-xml-names] are named by a URI.  [...]
>       Thus, the
>       registered document will be either the specification or a
>       reference to it.  [...]
> 
> It seems to me that the "XML" field of this registration should be:
> 
>    XML: RFC XXXX
> 
> to provide the name of the registered specification of the namespace.
> [Xufeng]: Section 14 in [RFC6020] registers two URIs for the YANG and YIN XML namespaces in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. After it, all YANG modules currently use this format.
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art