Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-09
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 21:13 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 C4AB63A0D0E; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0y3fr3b6TF5v; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56D23A0D0A; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id z72so11390921wmc.2; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YV5YtbaiqoSwmqZiJmoXshK3ccR7NwUWzgQVPm7DK5A=; b=SJ5xb/phjdAhTzzUL4clqaDD21+NSCmJ3HJlDOr9nL7vglCKwXWLzPFe6Gzuz/oaJX 3yMMpFOac93p0LR5f5D4GSebkJp6uG1Z4yBt27PTTh2cInlbS6QEy7Dc/hdeIAZe1H8c LYMClgphxUFiyKc0ge7uq5KSfhhMcBafABpBB0glxfKHk0fTeMDu3Ba+7TWjPqwn0FYi cbpNpzl0cgphr58Eb8+dHALboqb6MlSmLPPYHqMfMEAfquE5Hm4BZQ0IE7nmrQi9Z9Wb wZkeF3szK+42OOE3l5aQczc/qvCkHGHQLEnok/aaQvluCS/6mpxmRgAexYbynUG+mpEX z+/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YV5YtbaiqoSwmqZiJmoXshK3ccR7NwUWzgQVPm7DK5A=; b=RZC2638NZ8wyvJHkKLAu7FrkWSG5K1hLNII0l65A/jrRpqCraMQ4qDIMBM7gSnoTrU pPxAmGeeTF9CsS48rFurqLFZLimebBNPgSI1w/DpJeIZFxRDtPYH/H9Gn4BdKWbKQ3ak f5j/y1I1Agv6KwVWdEcAJJkMkzSGR2FgocXSLntVByKJOe59+ff9dB1pwg+xT0mghZ+6 07gCg0e5/O9qRtwUrj/6uRs1B9HJ2jcdouPmMpMXpBs463GpQUM8xY/dsWlnq2szTAPc RJUUf6Hzn95mSlE2xfjsN0RXOyoPq0MDQlj72Mbqp3hRYl+CV+52FbWENm9b9T3It8tn oaqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZXaLFklPL4TBM9x+beF1cKzsuhxwlzQABAM2xVNE/OM+otYkLL LGGi07/eAGkEbZh+CZcx3bsqo0SDOCBSuPuzrnU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJAHBKpmJ/3jkH+/JRf/3LiyL5Qbx3LsSZhHia7hGqPjHoHnGPiMzz3/yAn27WXQWIAyR501+MHN47GjIHmCZE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1:: with SMTP id g1mr32961528wmc.142.1589231620838; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 11 May 2020 17:13:40 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB31484BB0781DC5EB19D822DA96A80@HE1PR07MB3148.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsz-MvVF-2o2_Gso6yKocUKhRFrJTp0jsUwFpcznfj5qXw@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3148BBF5316C9EC1FAC7742A96330@HE1PR07MB3148.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsztgWZr397ca6zVCc=9=Fq5B7ib64YmePXN7KNefA5zng@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3148318D959984C817EC11E796AE0@HE1PR07MB3148.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESszGOfmsWNuBWncAms4t5jMeVXvP_nQ1c4a-qxZNYUmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB31484BB0781DC5EB19D822DA96A80@HE1PR07MB3148.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 17:13:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxYCLQoWbtCB0R7bySExcmeOXexZFFCO2nyHJmz1kNRfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/MyrwRUtlhcppBA5eYqfFPqWGBCc>
Subject: Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-09
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 21:13:45 -0000
On May 2, 2020 at 8:39:48 AM, Hongji Zhao wrote: Hongji: Hi! How are you? > We have already addressed all your comments and uploaded the latest version > as draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-10. First, to answer your question about rfc4541: Yes, it must be a Normative reference as that is where snooping is defined. We will take care of the DownRef registry as we get the document approved. I need this reference in the right place so that the IETF Last Call call its out. Along with that, I have some comments on -10 (see below). Thanks! Alvaro. ... 134 1.2. Tree Diagrams 136 Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in 138 [RFC8340]. [nit] There's an extra line above... ... 180 +----------+-----------------------+---------------------------------+ 182 | l2vpn | ietf-l2vpn | [draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang] | 183 +----------+-----------------------+---------------------------------+ 185 | dot1q | ieee802-dot1q-bridge | [dot1Qcp] | 187 +----------+-----------------------+---------------------------------+ 189 Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules [nit] This table seems to also have extra lines. 191 2. Design of Data Model [major] It may be confusing to other readers the reason for not augmenting, or even requiring, the IGMP/MLD model (rfc8652). Please include some text to explain the relationship between snooping and the IGMP/MLD protocols themselves. Specifically, the fact that the switches don't really need to run the protocols. ... 197 In recent years, a number of commercial vendors have introduced products 198 described as "IGMP snooping switches" to the market. These devices do 199 not adhere to the conceptual model that provides the strict separation 200 of functionality between different communications layers in the ISO 201 model, and instead utilize information in the upper level protocol 202 headers as factors to be considered in processing at the lower levels 203 [RFC4541]. [major] This paragraph is a copy from rfc4541...which was written in 2006, so the "in recent years" phrase doesn't really apply anymore. Please remove it. 205 IGMP Snooping switches utilize IGMP, and could support IGMPv1, IGMPv2, 206 and IGMPv3. IGMP snooping switches may maintain forwarding tables based 207 on either MAC addresses or IP addresses [RFC4541]. MLD Snooping switches 208 utilize MLD, and could support MLDv1 and MLDv2. [major] This paragraph is a great opportunity to include appropriate references for all the protocols above. If they are not Normative already, any new references can be Informative. [minor] "IGMP snooping switches may maintain forwarding tables based on either MAC addresses or IP addresses [RFC4541]." This sentence also comes directly from rfc4541. Do we need it? What about MLD Snooping? Given that the model includes a mac-address for both the IGMP and MLD instances, it seems to me that we can simply take it out to avoid confusion. ... 229 2.2. Optional Capabilities 231 This model is designed to represent the capabilities of IGMP and MLD 232 switches with various specifications, including the basic capability 233 subsets of IGMP and MLD Snooping. The main design goals of this document 234 are that the basic capabilities described in the model are supported by 235 any major now-existing implementation, and that the configuration of all 236 implementations meeting the specifications is easy to express through 237 some combination of the optional features in the model and simple vendor 238 augmentations. [minor] This is not the IGMP/MLD module: s/This model is designed to represent the capabilities of IGMP and MLD switches with various specifications, including the basic capability subsets of IGMP and MLD Snooping./This model is designed to represent the basic capability subsets of IGMP and MLD Snooping. ... 258 2.3. Position of Address Family in Hierarchy ... 271 * The structure is consistent with other YANG data models such as 272 [RFC8344], which uses separate branches for IPv4 and IPv6. [minor] s/[RFC8344]/[RFC8652] This would be a more appropriate justification. ... 540 3.3. Using IGMP and MLD Snooping Instances ... 550 It also augments /dot1q:bridges/dot1q:bridge/dot1q:component/ 551 dot1q:bridge-vlan/dot1q:vlan to use igmp-snooping-instance. It means 552 IGMP Snooping is enabled in the certain VLAN of the bridge. [nit] s/in the certain VLAN of the bridge/in the specified VLAN on the bridge 554 augment /dot1q:bridges/dot1q:bridge: 555 +--rw igmp-snooping-instance? igmp-mld-snooping-instance-ref 556 +--rw mld-snooping-instance? igmp-mld-snooping-instance-ref 557 augment /dot1q:bridges/dot1q:bridge/dot1q:component 558 /dot1q:bridge-vlan/dot1q:vlan: 559 +--rw igmp-snooping-instance? igmp-mld-snooping-instance-ref 560 +--rw mld-snooping-instance? igmp-mld-snooping-instance-ref [nit] Add a space between the 2 augmentations...for readability. ... 594 4. IGMP and MLD Snooping YANG Module 596 This module references 597 [RFC2236],[RFC3376],[RFC3810],[RFC4286],[RFC4541],[RFC4604],[RFC4607], 598 [RFC6020],[RFC6241],[RFC6636],[RFC6991],[RFC7950],[RFC8040],[RFC8342], 599 [RFC8343],[RFC8340],[RFC8529],[RFC8652],[dot1Qcp], and [draft-ietf-bess- 600 l2vpn-yang]. [major] RFC2236, RFC3810, RFC4286, RFC4604, RFC4607, RFC6020, RFC6241, RFC7950, RFC8040, RFC8342. RFC8340 and RFC8652 are not referenced *inside* the model. Please don't include them in this sentence. 602 <CODE BEGINS> file ietf-igmp-mld-snooping@2020-04-29.yang ... 1707 <CODE ENDS> 1708 5. Security Considerations [nit] Add an extra line for readability. ... 1730 /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 1732 /rt:control-plane-protocol:/ims:igmp-snooping-instance 1734 /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 1736 /rt:control-plane-protocol:/ims:mld-snooping-instance [minor] The locations can be summarized: Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:/ ims:igmp-snooping-instance ims:mld-snooping-instance Please apply the same format to other entries in this section. ... 1791 6. IANA Considerations ... 1804 Registrant Contact: The IESG. [major] s/IESG/IETF ... 1826 7.1. Normative References 1828 [dot1Qcp] Holness, M., "IEEE 802.1Qcp-2018 Bridges and Bridged 1829 Networks - Amendment: YANG Data Model", 2018. [major] This reference is not complete. Let's try this: [dot1Qcp] IEEE, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks--Amendment 30: YANG Data Model", IEEE Std 802.1Qcp-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.1Q-2014), September 2018, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=8467505> ... 1872 [RFC7951] L. Lhotka, "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", RFC 1873 7951, August 2016. [minor] This reference can be Informative. ... 1920 7.2. Informative References ... 1926 [RFC4541] M. Christensen, K. Kimball, F. Solensky, "Considerations 1927 for Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast 1928 Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping Switches", RFC 4541, May 1929 2006. [major] This reference must be Normative as that is where snooping is described. We will take care of the downref registry after the document is approved.
- [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snoopi… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-sn… Hongji Zhao