[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08

Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 12 December 2022 15:09 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <167085774389.46516.11191563565611967392@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 07:09:03 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/V5sLAxYW4Kk1mQhnPcTx812b2QI>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Issues

Revew: Document is readable and matches Yang for 1.1. 
Status: 1 issue

Is it possible that deployments for the filter-mode be 
require both INCLUDE and EXCLUDE (see pages. 6, 7 and grouping state-group-attribute)? 

The text says "INCLUDE" or "EXCLUDE".  It would be good to know why the authors felt
consider the "choice" statement where both "INCLUDE" and "EXCLUDE" would not be possible. 

Is this due to the normal situation for IGMP-proxy and MLD-Proxy in most deployed? 
What would happen if both were needed?  How can choice be part of an augmentation? 

Also, this review did not consider the automated tools review.

[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-p… Susan Hares via Datatracker
Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ie… Hongji Zhao
Re: [RTG-DIR] [pim] Rtgdir last call review of dr… Hitoshi Asaeda
Re: [RTG-DIR] [pim] Rtgdir last call review of dr… Hongji Zhao