[pim] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Fri, 08 February 2019 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDDD12867A; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 08:28:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bjwk3MYaYQqV; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 08:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (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 F03C9124BAA; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 08:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EE892D1EA3F932006801; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:28:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:28:17 +0000
Received: from DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMA404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 00:28:10 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang.all@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
Thread-Index: AdS/yxlPiJWnN2g7RKq4uOU1v8ZZYg==
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:28:10 +0000
Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B71955C29713E@DGGEMA503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B71955C29713EDGGEMA503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/NLtGKdLXN7_V4Kb0T59Ez5PbyII>
Subject: [pim] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:28:23 -0000

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 2019-02-08
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-08
Intended Status: Standard Track

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

The draft defines a YANG data model to configure and manage IGMP and MLD protocols. The model itself is clear. But some clarification are appreciated in the scope description.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

1)      In Section 1.3, the sentence before Table 1 seems not completed.
2)      Section 2.1 says “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.” It is not clear whether it is “not all IGMP and MLD features” or “not all configuration…” I assume the first one but it still doesn’t give much information of the scope. Is it possible to briefly describe what are not included?
3)      Section 2.2 mentions “basic subsets of the IGMP and MLD protocols”. Is the “basic subsets” something that has consensus in IETF? Otherwise, better to explain what they are in this document.