Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-01 comments

[Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>]

"leaf require-router-alert", is it to set RA, and/or requiring RA on received messages.

     ----------------- When the value is true, it requires router-alert on received messages.



What is the name/key used for a snooping instance? Can a user choose an arbitrary name, or do implementations somehow decide the name?

          ---------- The name specifies the igmp snooping instance and the instance will be used in the BRIDGE scenario or L2VPN scenario. User could choose any name for it.  It looks like below:



ubuntu# show running-config igmp-snooping-instances

igmp-snooping-instances igmp-snooping-instance ins1

type                            bridge

enable                          true

forwarding-mode                 ip

explicit-tracking               true

send-query                      true

immediate-leave

 !

!

ubuntu# show running-config bridges

bridges bridge isp

component comp

  bridge-vlan vlan 100

   igmp-snooping-instance ins1

  !

!

!





Other comments have been addressed and will be fixed in the next version of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.





BR/Hongji

赵宏吉



-----Original Message-----
From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 6:06 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-01 comments



Hi



After reading through the draft I have some comments.



The main comment I have is regarding the robustness variable. I see it says the value must be in the range 2..7. But RFC 3376 does allow 1,

quote:



   The Robustness Variable allows tuning for the expected packet loss on

   a network.  If a network is expected to be lossy, the Robustness

   Variable may be increased.  IGMP is robust to (Robustness Variable -

   1) packet losses.  The Robustness Variable MUST NOT be zero, and

   SHOULD NOT be one.  Default: 2



Shouldn't this document, and also the IGMP-MLD model allow the value 1?



Below are various less important comments.





In section 2:

   The goal of this document is to define a data model that provides a

   common user interface to IGMP and MLD Snooping.  There is very

   information that is designated as "mandatory", providing freedom for

   vendors to adapt this data model to their respective product

   implementations.



It seems something is wrong with this sentence "There is very information...". Are there some words missing?



In 2.1, I'm not sure what this sentence means:

   The YANG module includes IGMP and MLD Snooping instances

   definition, instance references in the scenario of BRIDGE, VPLS.

Note that in 2.3 it says "bridge, L2VPN".



In 2.1 it says "clearing the specified IGMP and MLD Snooping". I think it should say something more, perhaps "IGMP and MLD Snooping group tables".



In 2.1, 2 dots at the end "data modeling language..".



In 2.2, double space "to configure IGMP and  MLD".



In 2.2, maybe find a better way to phrase "The attribute who could be read and written shows configuration data."



Section 3 comments.



It says "fowarding" several places.



It says "Outgoing ac in l2vpn fowarding". Should "ac" be "AC"? Same question regarding "pw". Also, should "mac"

be "MAC" in the descriptions? Also "l2vpn" should be "L2VPN" I think.



It says "VSI" in one place. What is VSI?



"leaf require-router-alert", is it to set RA, and/or requiring RA on received messages.



I think "The time after the device created L2 multicast record."

should be "The time elapsed since".



For last reporter it says "The last host address which has sent the report"... It should say "address of the last host which has.."

or perhaps better "address of the last report received...".



What is the name/key used for a snooping instance? Can a user choose an arbitrary name, or do implementations somehow decide the name?



In many descriptions it says "IP address", but some places it says "IPv4 address" or "IPv6 address". I think it is best to include the version in the description when the leaf is for a particular version.



Section 4 Security considerations probably need to be expanded. At the least explain why no issues if that's the case.



Section 5 needs to be updated, there is some work for IANA.



Mahesh's affiliation and address need to be updated.



Stig