IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Apply for WGLC about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 20 December 2018 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 AD5C1130E1B for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:57:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 hG-_yLvav9Mz for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 79CC4130E35 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3A707B2; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1545303443; bh=eE/iFZ4nti2Mugfn82tsIGK3buX//zz4Lzd5z/yEfMI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0N/ZUofY5pEkA07chx/fMEN6LzOevd1IyzoeItNywLwuRNo8qFjbzNYatNsFqST2G 9igKmC5Vrkgvm3s8V3u2nyJAmmfmWy4yEtkxXRfsz3D0oW7A2YXlweD8shMG2MHwmx d0F7ImdbtP0BFmSO/9S2IAy2hDJo2VwX+paFeLJs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B87B0; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:23 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Michael McBride <Michael.McBride@huawei.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB41929655CC0AD35AC4F46EE196BD0@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812201148160.3869@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <VI1PR07MB41929655CC0AD35AC4F46EE196BD0@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/bfRKZOcgzmNx9tfk0GNMKuMMDyE>
Subject: Re: [pim] Apply for WGLC about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang
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, 20 Dec 2018 10:57:29 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for doing this work. I haven't looked at this model before, but I 
took a look now:

    leaf expire {
       type uint32;
       units seconds;
       mandatory true;
       description
         "The time left before multicast group timeout.";
     }

This means there is no "infinity" when it comes to this timeout. So for 
static configuration where no timeout exists, what should be reported 
here? I don't know if this is a practical problem, just something that 
came to mind.

Apart from that I spent 15 minutes to quick-read the document and nothing 
else jumped out to me... Thanks for including the appendix examples, makes 
it easier to understand.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email