Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13: (with COMMENT)
Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com> Thu, 06 June 2019 06:17 UTC
Return-Path: <liuyisong@huawei.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 501BF120142 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l7RNEkoGecVJ for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 808131200B8 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 00CBA81E3FC9A5FCC072; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:17:17 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:17:16 +0100
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:17:15 +0100
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:17:15 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:17:05 +0800
From: Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
CC: Guofeng <guofeng@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVFmpyBUnGlEdgWkCnYmGWoBhWf6aDAB4AgAsClVCAAAc6oA==
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 06:17:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D55792544C0AAD429ADA4746FE3504E08D7C2F5C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <155916744586.5441.2052365244437409953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEz6PPRNT3=9VD8thKtAjj4T1Psw83OPxQ=c3pD26vdNLmdcug@mail.gmail.com> <26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A5B2482373@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A5B2482373@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.172.168]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_D55792544C0AAD429ADA4746FE3504E08D7C2F5CNKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/X2DfqelqzywKzT7MT-G-fGuRZAE>
Subject: Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 06:17:22 -0000
Hi I have gone through the parameters in IGMP & MLD yang model, and identified the differences of the parameters based on version. Thanks Yisong From: Xufeng Liu [mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 7:19 PM To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com<mailto:suresh@kaloom.com>> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org>; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>; pim-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:pim-chairs@ietf.org>; pim@ietf.org<mailto:pim@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13: (with COMMENT) Hi Suresh, Thanks for the review and comments. Some of the version check could be done in YANG, while the concern was the complexity added to the model, with a cost to the usability. The authors will examine these cases and address them using either approach as suggested. Maybe some of them use YANG and others use explanation descriptions. In the case of the explanation description, the system can do the validation at the backend and provide feedback. Thanks, - Xufeng On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 6:04 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I do have a general concern with the document in relation to its handling of multiple protocol versions. There are features in the yang models that should be conditional but they do not seem to be. Here are some examples. * The source specific features are to be used with IGMPv3 and MLDv2 and will not work with the earlier versions * The router alert check is not optional for MLD or IGMPv3, but is required to be disabled for compatibility with earlier versions of IGMP. I would also make this feature conditional on the IGMP version. If not you need to rethink the defaults for this. I would like to understand the authors' views on how they plan to address the potential consistency issues due to these features being unbound in the model. I would be fine if it is either addressed with yang constructs or with some explanatory text to this point.
- [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-iet… Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Liuyisong
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Liuyisong
- Re: [pim] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft… Xufeng Liu