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

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Fri, 24 May 2019 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 C300C120252; Fri, 24 May 2019 00:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=mPHx1Ju3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=TCi+llNb
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 s6ykY_hEtKoC; Fri, 24 May 2019 00:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A4091200EB; Fri, 24 May 2019 00:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=24029; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558682670; x=1559892270; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=pNrrGMAx4xHpbYnI7WyxSbxp9bEVIDDNwN4Nekz+9JE=; b=mPHx1Ju3z7x6ClTGvKOjebS2KezVxYplpxL0G9o8hrsZKzpyhcmKjAum 2IxE7zhOugifDLNeK/MQvQMOAjBy5WiPrQMb+4uWiJD3GB5omLfB5SaHi c7QITtM20k58XRU2yzu1EBWbWmyL4SfxK+awdVodZJyeWUDp7PkPG9wPC g=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AiMU7zhYnrTCtIbeMb8Bwx5T/LSx94ef9IxIV55?= =?us-ascii?q?w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gebRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn?= =?us-ascii?q?1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavncT08F8dPfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BoAAARm+dc/5pdJa1mHQEBBQEHBQG?= =?us-ascii?q?BUQgBCwGBDi9QA2lVIAQLKIQTg0cDhFKKJYIyJYlAjWmBLhSBEANUCQEBAQw?= =?us-ascii?q?BASMKAgEBhEACF4IhIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtHAyFSgEBAQEDEhEdAQEpDgE?= =?us-ascii?q?PAgEIEQMBAigDAgICHxEUBgMIAgQOBSKDAAGBHU0DHQECDJpUAoE4iF9xgS+?= =?us-ascii?q?CeQEBBYE2Ag5BgwQNC4IPAwaBNAGLUReBQD+BEScME4FOfj6CGkcBAQECAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?qARIBPw0JglQygiaLRC2Bai2EX5UjPQkCgg2GM4h7BINdG4IehmKNO4MZkE6?= =?us-ascii?q?BVolSgz4CBAIEBQIOAQEFgU84ZlgRCHAVZQGCQYIPDBcUgzmFFIU/cgGBKIp?= =?us-ascii?q?vgkMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,506,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="563793474"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 24 May 2019 07:24:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4O7OSVs012897 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 May 2019 07:24:28 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 24 May 2019 02:24:28 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 24 May 2019 02:24:27 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:24:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=pNrrGMAx4xHpbYnI7WyxSbxp9bEVIDDNwN4Nekz+9JE=; b=TCi+llNb5Lu3pfvtuaGT+8a/+Imo2VsPNx4v4fUweLaNfy6H8HWYiSa6KucYY+NJb6872WxmbNFVIpEO6XAW7x8/kaI4xz3NLvzxRbNdmBKWR3TNI0DYiN5zlpSgFAMLCLaCUHKRcjNHPWl75w4K7gpqW/7wh+keJ5VITB8jnRs=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.150.210) by MN2PR11MB4046.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.149.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.16; Fri, 24 May 2019 07:24:25 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1990:d953:1387:d1a7]) by MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1990:d953:1387:d1a7%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.018; Fri, 24 May 2019 07:24:25 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tlJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGlt?= =?utf-8?Q?-igmp-mld-yang-12:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHVEZUVodAVHvmPRk2vIhHUzvNoWqZ6AciA
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 07:24:24 +0000
Message-ID: <0755C32D-5A8E-4461-9D73-C25BA1DF17FA@cisco.com>
References: <155835682689.12789.14361515301975501671.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEz6PPRBYZCdwi-WSdVG-1hooQsf0F+u+jnz_eyh3AQdXN0M2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEz6PPRBYZCdwi-WSdVG-1hooQsf0F+u+jnz_eyh3AQdXN0M2w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.19.0.190512
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:d0de:2138:df42:986d]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 57420e70-00f3-429d-a5f2-08d6e018d991
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4046;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4046:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB40469CF8B81888E237760592A9020@MN2PR11MB4046.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0047BC5ADE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(136003)(189003)(51914003)(199004)(6306002)(236005)(6512007)(36756003)(66574012)(54896002)(224303003)(6916009)(6486002)(86362001)(5070765005)(14454004)(6506007)(5660300002)(76176011)(606006)(53546011)(102836004)(966005)(229853002)(478600001)(19627235002)(486006)(46003)(2616005)(316002)(71200400001)(66946007)(476003)(4326008)(446003)(11346002)(6436002)(6116002)(99286004)(14444005)(256004)(58126008)(82746002)(186003)(83716004)(53936002)(71190400001)(2906002)(81166006)(33656002)(54906003)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(66476007)(7736002)(73956011)(6246003)(25786009)(68736007)(21615005)(81156014)(91956017)(76116006)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4046; H:MN2PR11MB4144.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: oxIZzTSUhEKLaCaqB3mRnNHQnl3W8Sk8HmMlATyGz696O9mrpVeHXVV9aXXbKQrR/wTGuElpbIUKBk2B/HQr+14nxIpmfuXEojUhZQeJlhLIFzQf/LMLIP/1UhxiKNf79S4bUOP+13O5PfxUobCVLqR5NOZl7f1EEEp1vq1A3QQ7oOOl7KbBOjGBIwOk8nUXieHAoyVhOBQ+aEFgzLT/QXQN7GM/FgRjv3kuXhJg6+pW8YY8iaGL5ZESa+bnded55pNmdogC3WzEItr6pV4GDKQ2oxCySPnExlGk8FLHbpXG3++nkeKQPEBpluI8PrZiL3VLFaBuUR3n09xrJu/Cjlhd3AOGNaI4tsFId9r4j/rD8xukVWL59l6DaPq77WbmUP3eOcEKx4pMbqZg+YB1S+pyCiitloqphHAshMvnYjo=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0755C32D5A8E44619D73C25BA1DF17FAciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 57420e70-00f3-429d-a5f2-08d6e018d991
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 May 2019 07:24:25.1702 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: evyncke@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4046
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.28, xch-aln-018.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Xoghfuy7gwsdi49IS8bGfBE09dw>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?pim-igmp-mld-yang-12=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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, 24 May 2019 07:25:19 -0000

Xufeng

Thank you for the updated document and the actions on my comments.

I am still unsure whether having two branches (IPv4 & IPv6) is the right thing to do but I am trusting the WG as well as the YANG doctors on this topic.

Regards

-éric


From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2019 at 20:26
To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>;
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang@ietf.org>;, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>;, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;, "pim-chairs@ietf.org"; <pim-chairs@ietf.org>;, "pim@ietf.org"; <pim@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the review. We have posted an updated revision https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-13, to address these comments.

Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:53 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
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.

[Xufeng]: These parameters should cover both configuration parameters and operational states. Since we are following NMDA structure, the same parameter can be for both configuration and operational state. We have changed the phrase “The configuration parameters” to “The configuration parameters and operational states”.

-- 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.

[Xufeng]: We agree that one branch is doable, but the current structure reflects the result of the discussions from the design team and working group. The reasons are:

- The model can support IGMP, MLD, or both optionally and independently. Such a flexibility cannot be achieved cleanly with a combined branch.

- The structure is consistent with other YANG models such as RFC8344, which uses separate branches for ipv4 and ipv6. It is true that some SNMP modules are address-family-independent, such as ipForward in RFC4292, but there are also address-family-separated objects like ipv4InterfaceTable/ipv6InterfaceTable in RFC4293. IGMP and MLD are specified as separate protocols, specified as separate RFCs. Naturally separate protocol identities can be defined for each. This is similar to the structures specified for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-yang.

- The separate branches for IGMP and MLD can accommodate their differences better and cleaner. The two branches can better support different features and node types.

We have expanded the text a bit more to explain.


== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --

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

[Xufeng]: Added the reference.

Expand CLI even if well-known.

[Xufeng]: Modified as suggested.