A YANG Data Model for Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Proxy Devices
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-10

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

This specification says -

  "occasionally implemented parameters are modeled as optional features in
this model, while the rarely implemented parameters are not included in
this model and left for augmentation.”

It is very vague in describing the criteria of selecting what is occasionally and rarely implemented parameter. So, one might pick one parameter as rarely implemented and the same parameter can be picked as occasionally implemented by others. I would suggest to either describe it more or point to something where this was discussed. It might just say - at this point this is the WG’s concensus on the list of rarely and occasionally implemented parameters and features.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

My discuss covers two of comments below that I would like to have some discussion on to resolve (further details are in my comments below):

(1) The addition/default of the "enable" leaf.
(2) Name of the interface_name list key rather than just name.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

I note the formatting of the .txt file is strange (e.g., my commenting script isn't able to parse it because it seems to have extra line breaks in unexpected places).  I also note that there is no XML file uploaded.  So, sorry but my comments are in a slightly more raw format!

1. Introduction:

The "Network Management
Datastore Architecture" (NMDA) adds the ability to inspect the current
operational values for configuration, allowing clients to use identical
paths for retrieving the configured values and the operational values.

## I don't think that this paragraph is required.  Other IETF YANG RFCs just cite NMDA.

2. Design of Data Model

This document provides freedom
for vendors to adapt the data model to their product implementations.
For example, some vendors could support configuring IGMP Robustness
Variable under the interface which enabled IGMP Proxy. They could make
their own augmentation.

## I'm not sure that this paragraph is necessary, since this applies to all YANG models and isn't specific to what is defined here.

2.2. Optional Capabilities

There is also value in widely supported features being standardized, to
provide a standardized way to access these features, to save work for
individual vendors, and so that mapping between different vendors'
configuration is not needlessly complicated. Therefore, this model
declares a number of features representing capabilities that not all
deployed devices support.

# I don't think that this paragraph is accurate for the YANG contained in this draft.  The model below only defines two features, one covering IGMP Proxy and one covering MLD Proxy.

The extensive use of feature declarations should also substantially
simplify the capability negotiation process for a vendor's IGMP / MLD
Proxy implementations.

# Again, I don't think that this paragraph is accurate and should be removed.

The YANG data model defined in this document conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The operational
state data is combined with the associated configuration data in the
same hierarchy [RFC8407].

## I think that this paragraph is redundant and can be removed.

The igmp-version represents version of IGMP protocol, and default value
is 2.

### represents version -> represents the version, and default -> and the default

If the value of enable is true, it means IGMP Proxy is enabled.

## I would make this a separate paragraph.  I'm also not entirely sure why we need this leaf, since I would expect IGMP proxy to be enabled on an interface simply because an interface entry exists in the list.  Please can you give me an explanation as to why it needed, and if it is needed whether it would be better to default to true rather than false.

          leaf interface-name {
            type if:interface-ref;
            must "not( current() = /rt:routing"+
              "/rt:control-plane-protocols/pim-base:pim"+
              "/pim-base:interfaces/pim-base:interface"+
              "/pim-base:name )" {
              description
                "The upstream interface for IGMP proxy
                must not be configured to use PIM.";
            }
            description "The upstream interface name.";

# It would be more consistent with other IETF models to just use "name" for the interface name.  Is there a good reason to not be consistent here?  Both here, and for downstream-interface and also for MLD.

[Ballot comment]
OLD DISCUSS:

Should these not be a rw value?

              +--ro filter-mode      enumeration

            +--ro group* [group-address]
                +--ro group-address

                +--ro source* [source-address]

The example in the appendix shows these values being set (so rw):

        "group-address": "233.252.0.23",
                        "filter-mode": "include",

Answer: no these are inherited from the interface above it.


NITS:
    The mld-version represents version of MLD protocol, and default value is 2.

The "2" here is a link to Section 2, which I assume is not intended to be a link.

    The mld-version represents version of MLD protocol

Missing "the" before version.

[Ballot discuss]
Should these not be a rw value?

              +--ro filter-mode      enumeration

            +--ro group* [group-address]
                +--ro group-address

                +--ro source* [source-address]

The example in the appendix shows these values being set (so rw):

        "group-address": "233.252.0.23",
                        "filter-mode": "include",

[Ballot comment]
NITS:
    The mld-version represents version of MLD protocol, and default value is 2.

The "2" here is a link to Section 2, which I assume is not intended to be a link.

    The mld-version represents version of MLD protocol

Missing "the" before version.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As I cannot agree with the section 2.3, I am balloting ABSTAIN as it does not fit any DISCUSS criteria (which would be my personal choice).

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated about my ABSTAIN), and one nit.

Special thanks to Stig Venaas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* missing the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 2.3

Having two different branches for MLD and IGMP can only lead to operational difficulties as two branches need to be handled. Operators won't have a easy way to manage both MLD and IGMP in the same network.

I expressed *exactly* the same point for RFC 8652.

Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a data model ?

## NITS

### Yang in uppercase

Please use YANG in all uppercase (notably in the RFC title) as it is an acronym.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Klaas Wierenga for the SECDIR review.

Section 5.  The following description is in include in the text a few times: “Modifying the configuration may cause the ... interface to be deleted or reconstructed.”
What does it mean for the interface to be “reconstructed”?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
Prefix: igmp-mld-proxy
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, stig@venaas.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Yang Data Model for IGMP/MLD Proxy) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'A Yang Data Model for IGMP/MLD Proxy'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-11-15. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The YANG module in
this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The YANG module in
this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
The WG process was straightforward. There is good support for the document, no issues raised.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
Not aware of any implementations, but 5 different vendors have worked on the draft. YANG doctor review found a few nits.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alvaro Retana.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The shepherd reviewed the document and believes it is ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
No objections. A handful of people apart from the authors supported it in WGLC. 5 vendors have worked together, so regard that as pretty good support.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor only found minor nits. They have been addressed in the latest version.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There is a reference to the pim YANG model, which should be published shortly.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).
There are updates to existing registries. They have been clearly identified.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
None

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
I have not checked this, but the YANG doctor review did not raise any concerns.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
I have not checked this myself. If needed I can try to get the help from the authors. I tried one of these tools, but looks like it may not be working.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The YANG module in
this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
The WG process was straightforward. There is good support for the document, no issues raised.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
Not aware of any implementations, but 5 different vendors have worked on the draft. YANG doctor review found a few nits.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alvaro Retana.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The shepherd reviewed the document and believes it is ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
No objections. A handful of people apart from the authors supported it in WGLC. 5 vendors have worked together, so regard that as pretty good support.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor only found minor nits. They have been addressed in the latest version.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There is a reference to the pim YANG model, which should be published shortly.

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).
There are updates to existing registries. They have been clearly identified.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
None

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
I have not checked this, but the YANG doctor review did not raise any concerns.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
I have not checked this myself. If needed I can try to get the help from the authors. I tried one of these tools, but looks like it may not be working.