Dale, thanks for your review. Xufeng, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Please disregard my ballot email — I missed this thread before balloting.
Alissa > On Apr 29, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > Thanks for the review. We have posted the updated > https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-11> to address > these issues. > > Some details are in-line below. > > Best regards, > - Xufeng > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM Dale Worley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>. > > Document: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10 > Reviewer: Dale R. Worley > Review Date: 2019-02-05 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-08 > IESG Telechat date: not known > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > I do not have the expertise to review the contents of the Yang > module itself. Fortunately, the Yang Doctor can review that. > > Minor issues: > > This draft has a number of exposition issues that should be fixed. > > Abstract > > This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to > configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and > Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) devices. > > Both here and in the Introduction, it would be better to say "devices > that implement IGMP and MLD" or something like that, since IGMP and > MLD are protocols, not classes of devices. > > Table of Contents > > 2. Design of Data model.......................................... 4 > 2.1. Scope of model .......................................... 4 > 2.2. Optional capabilities ................................... 4 > 2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy ................. 5 > 3. Module Structure ............................................. 5 > 3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state ................ 5 > 3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State ................. 8 > > It looks like the current style would capitalize "model", > "capabilities", "state", etc. > > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > > 1. Introduction > > This model will support > the core IGMP and MLD protocols, as well as many other features > mentioned in separate IGMP and MLD RFCs. > > "will support" needs clarifying. Does the model defined by this > document "support many other features", or is this a prediction that > the model will eventually be extended to do so? Indeed, the > Introduction should make a clear statement of what is and is not > supported by this version of the model. > [Xufeng]: Fixed. Should be present, not future. > > 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names > > Otherwise, > names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the > > The tail of this sentence is missing. > [Xufeng]: Fixed. > > 2. Design of Data model > 2.1. Scope of model > > The model covers IGMPv1 [RFC1112], IGMPv2 [RFC2236], IGMPv3 > [RFC3376] and MLDv1 [RFC2710], MLDv2 [RFC3810]. > > This should be stated in the Introduction as well. > [Xufeng]: Added. > > The configuration of IGMP and MLD features, and the operational > state fields and RPC definitions are not all included in this > document of the data model. > > As written, this says that the model covers some unspecified subset of > IGMP and MLD features. Is it possible to characterize what is > included and what is not? Otherwise, the reader would have to work > through the model to check on every specific item they were interested > in. > [Xufeng]: This section has been expanded to describe these features. > > This model can be extended, though the > structure of what has been written may be taken as representative of > the structure of the whole model. > > What does this mean? Like any Yang model, this model can be extended, > by anyone who chooses to do so. But how does "what has been written" > represent or constrain the structure of an extended model? > [Xufeng]: Reworded. > > 2.2. Optional capabilities > > The main design goals of > this document are that any major now-existing implementation may be > said to support the basic model, [...] > > Probably more correct to say "[...] may be said to support the > facilities described by the basic model [...]". > [Xufeng]: Reworded. > > There is also value in widely-supported features being standardized, > to save work for individual vendors, [...] > > And probably more importantly, so that the features can be accessed in > a standardized way. > [Xufeng]: Added such a phrase. > > 2.3. Position of address family in hierarchy > > The current document contains IGMP and MLD as separate schema > branches in the structure. The reason for this is to make it easier > for implementations which may optionally choose to support specific > address families. And the names of objects may be different between > the IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD) address families. > > It seems like the qualification of IGMP == IPv4 and MLD == IPv6 should > be done in the first sentence rather than the last. > [Xufeng]: Added clarification sentences at the beginning of this section. > > 3.1. IGMP Configuration and Operational state > > It seems like this section has a first part which applies to IGMP and > MLD equally (though it only talks about IGMP), and a second part which > is a summary of the IGMP module. Perhaps they should be split into > two sections? > [Xufeng]: Moved the paragraphs common to both IGMP and MLD to Sec 3. Put IGMP > specifics in Sec 3.1, and MLD specifics in Sec 3.2. > > Interface-global: Only including configuration data nodes that > IGMP configuration attributes are applicable to all the interfaces > whose interface-level corresponding attributes are not existing, > with same attributes' value for these interfaces. > > This sentence seems to have either extra words or missing words. > [Xufeng]: Rephrased. > > "SSM" seems to show up a lot but isn't defined. Is it part of IGMP/MLD? > [Xufeng]: Added to Sec 1.1. > > 3.2. MLD Configuration and Operational State > 3.3. IGMP and MLD RPC > > IGMP and MLD RPC clears the specified IGMP and MLD group membership. > > This is awkwardly phrased. Perhaps, "IGMP and MLD each have one RPC > which clears the group membership [database? table?] for that > protocol." > [Xufeng]: Rephrased. > > 4. IGMP and MLD YANG Modules > > The use of empty lines isn't consistent in the module definition. > [Xufeng]: Went through the module and fixed them. > > 5. Security Considerations > > These subtrees are all under > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols > /rt:control-plane-protocol/igmp: > > Is the trailing "/igmp:" meaningful? > > And parallel cases later in the section. As far as I can see, "igmp:" > etc. is part of the root node name of the subtree, not attached to > the path above it. > [Xufeng]: The “igmp” is meant to indicate the node under > “control-plane-protocol”. The prefix “igmp:” before “global” and “interfaces” > is the name space, but it should be “igmp-mld:” instead, because igmp and mld > share the same module and name space. Fixed these tokens in the document. > > Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can adversely > affect the membership records of multicast routing subsystem on the > local device. > > -- and some similar cases. The scope of the phrase "these subtrees" > is unclear. > [Xufeng]: The phrase “these subtrees” indicates all the trees listed above. > This paragraph is part of the template. Is it ok for us to modify this > paragraph? > > 6. IANA Considerations > > This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML > registry [RFC3688]: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-igmp-mld > > Registrant Contact: The IESG. > > XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > RFC 3688 section 3.2 includes: > > ns -- XML Namespaces [W3C.REC-xml-names] are named by a URI. [...] > Thus, the > registered document will be either the specification or a > reference to it. [...] > > It seems to me that the "XML" field of this registration should be: > > XML: RFC XXXX > > to provide the name of the registered specification of the namespace. > [Xufeng]: Section 14 in [RFC6020] registers two URIs for the YANG and YIN XML > namespaces in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. After it, all YANG modules > currently use this format. > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
