[pim] draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

I see a number of administrative glitches in this I-D.

YANG import must reference the RFC and that must be a Normative 
Reference for the I-D itself as per YANG Guidelines.

Examples should use documentation addresses and not IP addresses 
assigned to organisations

Web site should be datatracker not tools and is usually https: (although 
I note that RFC9166 is http: )

I find the choice of YANG prefix unhelpful - too cumbersome. It helps 
users when multiple related modules have related prefix, starting with a 
common string.  With multiple igmp-mld modules, I suggest a common three 
or four characters followed by a unique one or two.  I did not think 
'ims' a good idea at the time but since it is now in an RFC, then that 
seems the best choice for the common characters.

TLP is out-of-date although I realise that the tools make it difficult 
to be up-to-date so not something to spend much time on.

This augments routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol and 
I expect to see a presence container as per RFC8349 (which some pim 
modules do) but here I do not; if there is a reason for this then I 
think it worth adding to the YANG description.

The IP address format includes the zone; is this intended?

Is there a recommended default for 'up-time'?

You mention the likelihood of vendor augmentation; I would like to see 
more about this in the body of the I-D.  Some I-D go as far as examples 
of such but I would expect at least pointers to the nodes where 
augmentation may take place.  Do the nodes exist?

Why cannot I see RFC4605 (or RFC4604) listed in the datatracker for WG pim?

Tom Petch