Re: [pim] WGLC for draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-04

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

Hi

I wish we had more responses to the WGLC. The WG members need to
participate more. However, with authors from several vendors, reviews
by YANG doctor, Jake and I, I think we can say that it passed this
second WGLC. Please address Jake's comments and then we can request
publication.

Stig

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:49 PM Holland, Jake
<jholland=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandy,
>
> Thanks for working on this. I read through it, and I saw a few points I thought I should mention.
>
> 1.
> I noticed that this is Standards Track, but it has normative references to MSDP (RFC 3168), which is Experimental.
>
> I remember seeing in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4611#section-1.1 that a variance was required for a similar downref.
>
> If I understand the process in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-9.1 correctly, we'd either need this document to be Experimental instead of Standards Track, or we'd need to justify a similar variance.
>
> So I suggest making this doc Experimental.
>
> 2.
> I noticed the filter acls were strings, but there's no definition of the format or meaning of the strings, that I saw.
>
> Maybe the filters should use the acl-base type from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19#section-4.1 ?
>
> Either that or define the semantics of the strings in the acls, and how they filter.
>
> 3.
> I also saw a few nits:
> - section 6 is just: " No notification is defined in this model."
> Maybe it's better to remove the section?
>
> - section 3 I think there's a grammar error. Suggestion:
> OLD:
> The filter features allow operators to avoid some SA information be forwarded to some peers.
> NEW:
> The filter features selectively allow operators to prevent SA information from being forwarded to peers.
>
> - section 5 I think there's a missing word. Suggestion:
> OLD:
> The part is used to define some useful and ordinary operations
> NEW:
> The RPC part is used to define some useful and ordinary operations
>
>
> I have no other objections, I think it looks ok overall, as far as I can tell.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jake
>
> On 2018-08-27, 16:54, "Stig Venaas" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     This is the second WGLC for this document. There was no feedback
>     during the first last call in February, but the document has been
>     revised and improved since then. Mike and I believe it is time for
>     another last call.
>
>     Please respond by September 10th whether you believe it is ready for
>     publication, and what issues you may have with the document.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Stig
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     pim mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim