[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12

[Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: Ready with Nits

YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12 (by Reshad
Rahman) This is my YD review of -12,  I had previously done a review of -05:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2018-06-28/

All major issues raised in previous review have been addressed. The document
has become much clearer (extra text, examples etc).

Comments on rev-12:

Introduction. 1st line should reference RFC7950 instead of 6020.

Section on requirements language and normative reference to RFCs 2119/8174 is
missing

3. Module structure

It says xxx-snooping-instance are augmented by this model, but this is
incorrect. Did I misunderstand that sentence?

3.1
s/attribute represents/attributes represent/
s/which are configured statically/which are configured/
s/The value of bridge-mrouter-interface/The values of bridge-mrouter-interface/

YANG module:
Features shouldn’t have feature- in their name. All features should have a
reference.

There are are groupings which are used only once, e.g.
instance-config-attributes-igmp-snooping.

The num-xxx counters should have references.

All the dynamic leaf-lists xxx-router-interface have descriptions which I found
lacking. e.g. my understanding is that by snooping/seeing an IMGP or MLD
message on an interface/AC/PW that the interface/AC/PW gets added to the right
leaf-list? But the description offers no explanation how the dynamic leaf-lists
are built.

The augment of control-plane-protocol has when statement inside each of the
xxx-snooping-containers. Instead there should be 1 when statement with each
augment (1 for each container).

For the clear RPCs, if both source X and group Y are specified, then only
source X from group Y in that specific instance is cleared? That should be
mentioned in the description.

Security considerations.

Last paragraph (RPC), please mention the impact: flooding. Especially when
using wildcard on group and source.

Appendix A

Thanks for adding the examples. It’d help if we also had 1 RPC example,
especially explaining what entries are cleared.