[pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 01 December 2022 13:36 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pim@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79126C14F748; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 05:36:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, stig@venaas.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, stig@venaas.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <166990176748.52357.11679071816887044251@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 05:36:07 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/c-wVmAquGVs9V1jCa-GFFGzRF6I>
Subject: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 01 Dec 2022 13:36:07 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: Discuss 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle 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-proxy-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, My discuss covers two of comments below that I would like to have some discussion on to resolve (further details are in my comments below): (1) The addition/default of the "enable" leaf. (2) Name of the interface_name list key rather than just name. Regards, Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for this document. I note the formatting of the .txt file is strange (e.g., my commenting script isn't able to parse it because it seems to have extra line breaks in unexpected places). I also note that there is no XML file uploaded. So, sorry but my comments are in a slightly more raw format! 1. Introduction: The "Network Management Datastore Architecture" (NMDA) adds the ability to inspect the current operational values for configuration, allowing clients to use identical paths for retrieving the configured values and the operational values. ## I don't think that this paragraph is required. Other IETF YANG RFCs just cite NMDA. 2. Design of Data Model This document provides freedom for vendors to adapt the data model to their product implementations. For example, some vendors could support configuring IGMP Robustness Variable under the interface which enabled IGMP Proxy. They could make their own augmentation. ## I'm not sure that this paragraph is necessary, since this applies to all YANG models and isn't specific to what is defined here. 2.2. Optional Capabilities There is also value in widely supported features being standardized, to provide a standardized way to access these features, to save work for individual vendors, and so that mapping between different vendors' configuration is not needlessly complicated. Therefore, this model declares a number of features representing capabilities that not all deployed devices support. # I don't think that this paragraph is accurate for the YANG contained in this draft. The model below only defines two features, one covering IGMP Proxy and one covering MLD Proxy. The extensive use of feature declarations should also substantially simplify the capability negotiation process for a vendor's IGMP / MLD Proxy implementations. # Again, I don't think that this paragraph is accurate and should be removed. The YANG data model defined in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The operational state data is combined with the associated configuration data in the same hierarchy [RFC8407]. ## I think that this paragraph is redundant and can be removed. The igmp-version represents version of IGMP protocol, and default value is 2. ### represents version -> represents the version, and default -> and the default If the value of enable is true, it means IGMP Proxy is enabled. ## I would make this a separate paragraph. I'm also not entirely sure why we need this leaf, since I would expect IGMP proxy to be enabled on an interface simply because an interface entry exists in the list. Please can you give me an explanation as to why it needed, and if it is needed whether it would be better to default to true rather than false. leaf interface-name { type if:interface-ref; must "not( current() = /rt:routing"+ "/rt:control-plane-protocols/pim-base:pim"+ "/pim-base:interfaces/pim-base:interface"+ "/pim-base:name )" { description "The upstream interface for IGMP proxy must not be configured to use PIM."; } description "The upstream interface name."; # It would be more consistent with other IETF models to just use "name" for the interface name. Is there a good reason to not be consistent here? Both here, and for downstream-interface and also for MLD.
- [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-i… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Hongji Zhao
- Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-p… Rob Wilton (rwilton)