Re: [RTG-DIR] [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-08

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for making the changes. They look good to me.

I noticed that RFC 8407 (BCP) is used as a normative reference in this
document. I'd suggest moving it to informative.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:26 AM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Hi Yingzhen,
>
>
> Thank you very much for your review!
>
> I updated the draft to 09 version according to your comments.
>
> Please review the newest version.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sandy
>
>
> 原始邮件
> *发件人：*YingzhenQuviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> *收件人：*rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;
> *抄送人：*last-call@ietf.org <last-call@ietf.org>;
> draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.all@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang.all@ietf.org>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>;
> *日 期 ：*2020年01月21日 07:09
> *主 题 ：**[pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-08*
> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
> Review result: Has Issues
>
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
>
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
>
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
>
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang
> Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
> Review Date: Jan 20th, 2020
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
>
> This document is near ready for publication. It has some issues that should be
> at least considered prior to publication.
>
> Comments:
>
>
> Thanks for working on this draft. As an active YANG contributor I appreciate
> the work here.
>
> Major issues:
>
> The tree in the draft needs to be updated to match the model.
>
> In the grouping definition of “global-config-attributes”:
>       leaf prefix-policy {
>         type string;
>         description
>           "If specified, only those SA entries whose RP is
>            permitted in the prefix list are allowed;
>            if not specified, all SA messages from the default
>            peer are accepted.
>            The according policy model is defined in
>            'ietf-rtgwg-policy-model'.";
>       }
> It seems that this leaf is referencing what’s defined in the routing policy
>
> model, hence the type should be a leafref instead of string. I'd suggest to use
> ACL YANG model as defined in RFC8519 instead of routing policy model.
>
> Same issue as above for “sa-filter” leaf “in” and “out”.
>     container sa-filter {
>       description
>         "Specifies an access control list (ACL) to filter source
>          active (SA) messages coming in to or going out of the
>          peer.";
>       leaf in {
>         type string;
>         description
>           "Filters incoming SA messages only.
>            The string value is the name to uniquely identify a
>            policy that contains one or more policy rules used to
>            accept or reject MSDP SA messages.
>            If a policy is not specified, all MSDP SA messages are
>            accepted, the definition of such a policy is outside
>            the scope of this document.
>            The according policy model is defined in
>            'ietf-rtgwg-policy-model'.";
>       }
>       leaf out {
>         type string;
>         description
>           "Filters outgoing SA messages only.
>            The string value is the name to uniquely identify a
>            policy that contains one or more policy rules used to
>            accept or reject MSDP SA messages.
>            If a policy is not specified, all MSDP SA messages are
>            accepted, the definition of such a policy is outside
>            the scope of this document.
>            The according policy model is defined in
>            'ietf-rtgwg-policy-model'.";
>       }
>     } // sa-filter
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> Section 5 Security Considerations
> It should be the “key” field which is sensitive.
>
> Section 6 IANA Considerations:
>    The IANA is requested to assign two new URIs from the IETF XML
>    registry [RFC3688].  Authors are suggesting the following URI
> It should be one URI requested instead of two.
>
> Nits for your consideration:
>
> In the module:
> The copyright should be changed 2020.
>
>       leaf connect-retry-interval {
>         type uint16;
>         units seconds;
>         default 30;
>         description "Peer timer for connect-retry,
>                      SHOULD be set to 30 seconds.";
>       }
>
> The description needs to be fixed. By default, MSDP peers wait 30 seconds after
> session is reset.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
>