[pim] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-12: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG 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-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document.

I only have a couple of comments (but one important one about the 2 branches)
and a couple of nits.

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.1.1 and section 2.1.2 --

Those sections are about configuration parameters not covered at global or
interface level. But, what about operational states, can the reader assume that
they are all covered by this document ? It is really unclear.

-- Section 2.3 --

As I am not a multicast expert, I did not put a DISCUSS on this one. But, are
MLD and IGMP so different? Why having TWO different branches for each address
family... For SNMP, RFC 4292/4293 was made protocol version independent which
is a big plus IMHO for operations. In any case, there should be more
explanations why there are two branches than the one paragraph/two sentences in
section 2.3. Moreover, it seems that the two schema branches are quite similar
so having one protocol version independent branch appears to be doable.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --

Add a reference to NMDA (expanding the acronym is not really sufficient, state
RFC 8342) ?

Expand CLI even if well-known.