Re: [pim] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 December 2022 19:43 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 2DEADC152596; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:43:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXku4LKVCOqL; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480C3C14F738; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:43:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id v23so4919390pju.3; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:43:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zuQkOOGjoXmQEMw1gDZ0Cy9diSFCDjopAYS04N2J3b4=; b=XkG6XxgfMgjcgmQby3bsLe93oIqpGgXhexXgk2MKjda9aOL8nPwo7D1GCvLWFhTg4X vJl5ruHuOUy0o4dnwQRqHdmN8JzOE0vUwynMgH3U7lb8T6p5UqjmNu27Jq8rL/Pj6CJ9 JAIQ1AMQpeEGemmhh8HdiSd9PFBn/oS/m07i1Q2YlYQCC5SDuVhk3rux4oQO59o7bjrz 5MKxEhILabhGIfq8mKSy953YNrKqDhezybVDM7zT7qzhU9zO699EajSXHGAQSiQ0mdHw YA5ryAANU1WbOWL8l76K3Bl0bOUJt3O6SKWXogo19AIH1ab01AWgZb/87kSsL/WCH4fL WuEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zuQkOOGjoXmQEMw1gDZ0Cy9diSFCDjopAYS04N2J3b4=; b=V/QXmHz6bjz6d164RC/aQaikprSjW8UeK2UTo0N93/XyJGbeZ7Jwf3IBdGC6z+KxYV 2UVHXbmmMNeO9C4w820DKxbYryleBhLejtkFQ4rIKbWjzKcSY+Q/Wz7lVAbOL12NlhbG MZql2vrvlF68pXdw5K+luCQdG/9G26uQ8wh9W3+kH3FIdYSvsudLCzmwuDiEo2rrQP5p x8fz6uJXhGHAppt5fRQvoibrkGoTk1Ie4oUxWiH5NFMq8TQbi6hq+YpGaWaPpmgp6AuL MwFEtpT5A14qfWZpvkKd0nXSmD/UDAAmOczPR73IV0KEZKjn7nUdfR5XjST6Sx7KFqs4 Iy2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pm7F9JEITnorKO3uQOssKSF+LPepokWuP9KG/gIbF5kq/3UQhBX i38QSBhcLGPQXHSIEHoCXwsBu0CpYhcHs5/ytZlaUH9ZGtY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7JYX5L5LTO4bf5yMtOMwRxQvW+kqdxaSTMJo6fFt9ay/6v3B2FBqPrMsrek1cMZ8h7nThtia02gJxcPJxyIdo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:82c4:b0:189:e81b:c52c with SMTP id u4-20020a17090282c400b00189e81bc52cmr15409087plz.92.1671478987563; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 11:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:43:06 -0600
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AS2PR07MB897932F9DA03B4A06D3A4072961B9@AS2PR07MB8979.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <166990176748.52357.11679071816887044251@ietfa.amsl.com> <AS2PR07MB897932F9DA03B4A06D3A4072961B9@AS2PR07MB8979.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:43:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyxZHoyzz3QbK-pcrdBp3osj3=pS+r1p19+EL05J7cwtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang@ietf.org>, "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "stig@venaas.com" <stig@venaas.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004da63705f033870b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/mGMiJHXb4MRreG9Vphy0-5Kcvio>
Subject: Re: [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
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, 19 Dec 2022 19:43:09 -0000
Rob: Hi! The authors published a revision (-09), can you please take a look and confirm your concerns have been addressed? Thanks! Alvaro. The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang/ Diff from previous version: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-09 On December 5, 2022 at 11:14:06 PM, Hongji Zhao (hongji.zhao@ericsson.com) wrote: Hi Robert, Thanks a lot for your comments. Please check inline. BR/Hongji -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sent: 2022年12月1日 21:36 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 Subject: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 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. [Authors] It could provide an option, and the customer could choose true or false flexibly. It is similar as IGMP YANG model, OSPF YANG model etc. In order to be consistent with other IETF models, the leaf needs to be changed to "enabled". The default value will be true. (2) Name of the interface_name list key rather than just name. [Authors] Accepted. We will change "interface_name" into "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! [Authors] I used WORD to edit, and then print out .txt file. So there may be some format issues. The RFC editor will create a new XML file and solve the format issues. 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. [Authors] Accepted. We will remove it. 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. [Authors] We will remove it. 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. [Authors] How about reword as below? 2.2 Optional Features This model declares two features representing capabilities that not all deployed devices support. One feature is igmp-proxy, and the other feature is mld-proxy. Either or both features could be implemented, which could provide more choices for vendors. 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. [Authors] Accepted 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. [Authors] Accepted The igmp-version represents version of IGMP protocol, and default value is 2. ### represents version -> represents the version, and default -> and the default [Authors] Accepted 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. [Authors] It could provide an option, and the customer could choose true or false flexibly. It is similar as IGMP YANG model, OSPF YANG model etc. In order to be consistent with other IETF models, the leaf needs to be changed to "enabled". The default value will be true. 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. [Authors] Accepted. We will change all the "interface_name" into "name".
- [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)