Re: [pim] IPR for draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang

<xu.benchong@zte.com.cn> Mon, 28 October 2019 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
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 A5429120090; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 oh_fCTMW53LN; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 C9E17120046; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D1B692CCD3F1EBD14C6D; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:47:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 89A698C98898DA4AB540; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:45:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x9S1jPDY031157; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:45:25 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xu.benchong@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:45:25 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:45:25 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb5db648351e0ec0d6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201910280945250197388@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.149.1571857227.22933.pim@ietf.org>
References: mailman.149.1571857227.22933.pim@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
To: <stig@venaas.com>, <pim@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x9S1jPDY031157
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/fdIBYfHE7Q1_NOOdzhvw8siTtEc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:52:36 -0800
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?IPR_for_draft-ietf-pim-msdp-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: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:47:51 -0000

Hi, Stig


I don't know any other undisclosed IPR about draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.





Thanks


Benchong Xu







原始邮件



发件人:pim-request@ietf.org <pim-request@ietf.org>;
收件人:pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>;;
日 期 :2019年10月24日 03:01
主 题 :pim Digest, Vol 186, Issue 17


Send pim mailing list submissions to
    pim@ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    pim-request@ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    pim-owner@ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of pim digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 (Alvaro Retana)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:17:03 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
To: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>;, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Subject: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06
Message-ID:
    <CAMMESswFDHY=14EBQxRczS=qTVDTx1EuqTkUT48_Py26bu=5Dw@mail.gmail.com>;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Dear authors:

I just finished reviewing this document. ?I don't have a lot of
comments on the model itself (please see below), but the document
needs significant work to live up to rfc8407 (Guidelines for YANG
Documents) and the specific requirements mentioned there for YANG
documents. ?In general, compare this document with
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang (which was written by almost the same
author team). ?Items from rfc8407 that are not addressed in this
document include:

?"A terminology section MUST be present if any terms are defined in the
?document or if any terms are imported from other documents." ?Is there no
?terminology defined in rfc3618 (or elsewhere) that is used in this document
?and useful to highlight?

?"If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG
?tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document."

?"If the module or modules defined by the specification imports definitions
?from other modules...or are always implemented in conjunction with other
?modules, then those facts MUST be noted in the overview section...Section 2.3
?of [RFC8349] for an example of this overview section."

?The Security Considerations "MUST be patterned after the latest approved
?template (available at
?<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>)." ?See also
?some comments on the Security Consideration section itself.

?"For every import or include statement that appears in a module contained in
?the specification that identifies a module in a separate document, a
?corresponding normative reference to that document MUST appear in the
?Normative References section."

?"For every normative reference statement that appears in a module contained in
?the specification that identifies a separate document, a corresponding
?normative reference to that document SHOULD appear in the Normative References
?section."

?"Each specification that defines one or more modules SHOULD contain usage
?examples, either throughout the document or in an appendix."


Please also check idnits:
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06.txt


I will wait for a revision, and for any major issues identified inline
before starting the IETF LC.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[Line numbers from idnits.]

2    PIM WG ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Xufeng. Liu
3    Internet-Draft ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Volta Networks
4    Intended status: Standards Track ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Zheng. Zhang
5    Expires: October 25, 2019 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ZTE Corporation
6     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anish. Peter
7     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Individual contributor
8     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Mahesh. Sivakumar
9     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Juniper networks
10     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Feng. Guo
11     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Huawei Technologies
12     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Pete. McAllister
13     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Metaswitch Networks

[nit] For all the authors, "The author's name (initial followed by
family name)..." (rfc7322).


.....
71    1. ?Introduction
.....
78     ? This model is designed to be used along with other multicast YANG
79     ? models such as PIM, which are not covered in this document.

[major] Is the PIM model required? ?I didn't find an indication in the
model that other models were needed.

[nit] A reference to the PIM model would be nice.

81    2. ?Design of the Data Model

83     ? This model imports and augments ietf-routing YANG model defined in
84     ? [RFC8349]. ?Both configuration data nodes and state data nodes of
85     ? [RFC8349] are augmented. ?The configuration data nodes cover global
86     ? configuration attributes and per peer configuration attributes. ?The
87     ? state data nodes include global, per peer, and source-active
88     ? information. ?The container "msdp" is the top level container in this
89     ? data model. ?The presence of this container is expected to enable
90     ? MSDP protocol functionality. ?No notification is defined in this
91     ? model.

[nit] s/augments ietf-routing YANG model/augments the ietf-routing YANG model

93    module: ietf-msdp
94     ?augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols:
95     ? ?+--rw msdp!
96     ? ? ? +--rw global
97     ? ? ? | ?+--rw tcp-connection-source? ? if:interface-ref
98     ? ? ? | ?+--rw default-peer* [peer-addr prefix-policy]
{global-default-peer,global-default-peer-policy}?
99     ? ? ? | ?| ?+--rw peer-addr ? ? ? ?-> ../../../peers/peer/address
100     ? ? ? | ?| ?+--rw prefix-policy ? ?string
101     ? ? ? | ?+--rw originating-rp
102     ? ? ? | ?| ?+--rw interface? ? if:interface-ref
103     ? ? ? | ?+--rw sa-filter
104     ? ? ? | ?| ?+--rw in? ? ?string
105     ? ? ? | ?| ?+--rw out? ? string

[major] The use of "string" to point at the policy (for sa-filter,
prefix-policy) caught my attention. ?Later the text says that "The
definition of such a policy is outside the scope of this document."
Ok...draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model ?(Routing Policy Model) does define
the policy -- why is that work not used/referenced? ?I noticed that
there is an unused reference to I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model, which was
added in -05, when the "out of scope" text was also added...


.....
111     ? ? ? | ? ? +--rw authentication
112     ? ? ? | ? ? | ?+--rw (authentication-type)?
113     ? ? ? | ? ? | ? ? +--:(key-chain) {peer-key-chain}?
114     ? ? ? | ? ? | ? ? | ?+--rw key-chain? ? ? ? ? ?key-chain:key-chain-ref
115     ? ? ? | ? ? | ? ? +--:(password)
116     ? ? ? | ? ? | ? ? ? ?+--rw key? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?string
117     ? ? ? | ? ? | ? ? ? ?+--rw crypto-algorithm? ? identityref

[major] rfc3618 only requires Keyed MD5 support...which I assume
corresponds to the "password" option. ?Is that correct? ?Is the MSDP
operation with a key-chain specified somewhere else? ?Are we missing a
reference (in the model)?

118     ? ? ? | ? ? +--rw enable? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?boolean {peer-admin-enable}?
119     ? ? ? | ? ? +--rw tcp-connection-source? ? if:interface-ref

[minor] Maybe it's my poor understanding of YANG... ?It's not clear to
me whether the global configuration for tcp-connection-source has
precedence over the peer-specific configuration or not. ?Given that
tcp-connection-source is optional, and that several of the parameters
below depend on the peer configuration, it seems to me that some
information may not be present if only the global piece is configured.

[Again, this comment may simply reflect my misunderstanding of YANG.
If that is the case, just tell me and we can move on. :-) ]


.....
212    5. ?MSDP RPC

214     ? The RPC part is used to define some useful and ordinary operations of
215     ? protocol management. ?Network manager can delete all the information
216     ? from a given peer by using the clear-peer rpc. ?And network manager
217     ? can delete a given SA cache information by clear-sa-cache rpc.

[nit] s/manager/managers

[major] There is no NMDA-related statement.

219    6. ?MSDP YANG model

[major] Add text extracting all the reference statements (to be listed
in the References secion): "This module references..." ?All these
should be Normative.

221    <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-msdp.yang"

[major] From rfc8407:

? ?The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying
? ?the file name specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC7950]. ?The name string
? ?form that includes the revision date SHOULD be used. ?The revision
? ?date MUST match the date used in the most recent revision of the
? ?module.

IOW, the file name should be ietf-msdp@2019-04-23.yang ?Please make
sure this matches the date in the revision statement below.


.....
239     ? ? import ietf-routing {
240     ? ? ? prefix "rt";
241     ? ? ? reference "RFC8022";

[major] s/8022/8349

242     ? ? }

244     ? ? import ietf-interfaces {
245     ? ? ? prefix "if";
246     ? ? ? reference "RFC7223";

[major] s/7223/8343

247     ? ? }

249     ? ? import ietf-ip {
250     ? ? ? prefix "ip";
251     ? ? ? reference "RFC7277";

[major] s/7277/8344


.....
264     ? ? organization
265     ? ? ? "IETF PIM(Protocols for IP Multicast) Working Group";

[nit] s/PIM(Protocols/PIM (Protocols


.....
289     ? ? ? ?description
290     ? ? ? ? "The module defines the YANG definitions for MSDP.

292     ? ? ? ? ?Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
293     ? ? ? ? ?identified as authors of the code. ?All rights reserved.

295     ? ? ? ? ?Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
296     ? ? ? ? ?without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
297     ? ? ? ? ?subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified
298     ? ? ? ? ?BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
299     ? ? ? ? ?Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
300     ? ? ? ? ?(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
301     ? ? ? ? ?This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 3618; see
302     ? ? ? ? ?the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

[major] "this YANG module is part of RFC 3618" ?No, it is part of this
RFC-to-be; use "RFC XXXX" instead.

304     ? ? revision 2018-10-20 {

305     ? ? ? description
306     ? ? ? ? "Initial revision.";
307     ? ? ? reference
308     ? ? ? ? "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for MSDP.
309     ? ? ? ? ?RFC 3618: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP).
310     ? ? ? ? ?RFC 4624: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) MIB";
311     ? ? }

[major] The only reference should be RFC XXXX. ?The others are not
where the module is included...


.....
477     ? ? ? container originating-rp {
478     ? ? ? ? description
479     ? ? ? ? ? "The container of Originating RP.";
480     ? ? ? ? leaf interface {
481     ? ? ? ? ? type if:interface-ref;
482     ? ? ? ? ? must "/if:interfaces/if:interface[if:name = current()]/"
483     ? ? ? ? ? ? + "ip:ipv4" {
484     ? ? ? ? ? ? description
485     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "The interface must have IPv4 enabled.";
486     ? ? ? ? ? }
487     ? ? ? ? ? description
488     ? ? ? ? ? ? "Reference to an entry in the global interface
489     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?list.
490     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IP address of the interface is used in the RP field of
491     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?an SA message entry. When Anycast RPs are used, all
492     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?RPs use the same IP address. This parameter can be
493     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?used to define a unique IP address for the RP of each
494     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MSDP peer.
495     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?By default, the software uses the RP address of the
496     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?local system.";

[nit] s/address of the interface is used/address of the interface used


.....
555     ? ? ? container timer {
556     ? ? ? ? description "Timer attributes.";
557     ? ? ? ? leaf connect-retry-interval {
558     ? ? ? ? ? type uint16;
559     ? ? ? ? ? units seconds;
560     ? ? ? ? ? default 30;
561     ? ? ? ? ? description "Peer timer for connect-retry,
562     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?SHOULD be set to 30 seconds.";
563     ? ? ? ? }

[major] BCP14 is not referenced, nor is the template used. ?This is
the only instance of rfc2119 keywords that I found. ?If you want to
keep the Normative language, then please include the template and
references.


.....
591     ? ? ? uses ttl-threshold;

[?] The previous entry (line 510) reads:

? ? ?uses ttl-threshold {
? ? ? ?if-feature global-ttl-threshold;
? ? ?}

Should this mention of ttl-threshold be similar?



.....
639     ? ? ? leaf is-default-peer {
640     ? ? ? ? type boolean;
641     ? ? ? ? config false;
642     ? ? ? ? description "If this peer is default peer.";

[minor] s/If this peer is default peer./'true' if this peer is a default peer.


.....
738     ? ? grouping ttl-threshold {
739     ? ? ? description "Attribute to configure TTL threshold.";
740     ? ? ? leaf ttl-threshold {
741     ? ? ? ? type uint8 {
742     ? ? ? ? ? range 1..255;
743     ? ? ? ? }
744     ? ? ? ? description "Maximum number of hops data packets can
745     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?traverse before being dropped.";
746     ? ? ? }
747     ? ? } // sa-ttl-threshold

[nit] s/sa-ttl-threshold/ttl-threshold


.....
806     ? ? ? ? ? list peer {
807     ? ? ? ? ? ? key "address";
808     ? ? ? ? ? ? description
809     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "List of MSDP peers.";
810     ? ? ? ? ? ? leaf address {
811     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? type inet:ipv4-address;
812     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? description
813     ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "The address of peer";

[nit] s/address of peer/address of the peer


.....
955    7. ?Security Considerations

[major] Please update this section with the appropriate references
(using the latest template):
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines


.....
970     ? There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
971     ? writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
972     ? default). ?These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
973     ? in some network environments. ?Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
974     ? to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
975     ? effect on network operations. ?For MSDP, the ability to modify MSDP
976     ? configuration will allow the unexpected MSDP peer establishment and
977     ? unexpected SA information learning and advertisement. ?The "password"
978     ? field is also a sensitive readable configuration, the unauthorized
979     ? reading function may lead to the password leaking. ?The security
980     ? considerations of MSDP [RFC3618] are applicable.

[major] Please follow draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang
(draft-ietf-ospf-yang is also a good example) in calling out
specifics...before the Security ADs use a DISCUSS.

[major] Information about the readable nodes is missing.


.....
989    8. ?IANA Considerations

991     ? The IANA is requested to assign two new URIs from the IETF XML
992     ? registry ([RFC3688]). ?Authors are suggesting the following URI:

[nit] s/([RFC3688])/[RFC3688]

994     ? URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-msdp

996     ? Registrant Contact: PIM WG

[minor] s/PIM WG/The IESG

998     ? XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace

1000     ? This document also requests one new YANG module name in the YANG
1001     ? Module Names registry ([RFC6020]) with the following suggestion:

[nit] s/([RFC6020])/[RFC6020]


.....
1022    11. ?Normative References

1024     ? [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis]
1025     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
1026     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Data Model Documents", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20
1027     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(work in progress), March 2018.

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis has been published as
? ?RFC 8407

[minor] This reference (and the one to rfc6087) are not used.


.....
1047     ? [RFC5246] ?Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
1048     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
1049     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
1050     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)


.....
1070     ? [RFC6536] ?Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
1071     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
1072     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
1073     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)


.....
1079     ? [RFC7223] ?Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
1080     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
1081     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7223 (Obsoleted by RFC 8343)

1083     ? [RFC7277] ?Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
1084     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
1085     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7277 (Obsoleted by RFC 8344)


1087     ? [RFC8022] ?Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing
1088     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Management", RFC 8022, DOI 10.17487/RFC8022, November
1089     ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8022>;.

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8022 (Obsoleted by RFC 8349)



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim


------------------------------

End of pim Digest, Vol 186, Issue 17
************************************