Skip to main content

YANG Data Model for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
draft-ietf-pim-yang-17

Discuss


Yes

(Alvaro Retana)

No Objection

Warren Kumari
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari
No Objection
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was No Objection) Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2018-01-11 for -13) Unknown
Thanks to Jürgen, who reminded me that the YANG doctor feedback has not been addressed or replied to.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20/
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -12) Unknown

                            
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-01-10 for -13) Unknown
This document has the most legible and thoroughly-cited acronym list I think I've ever seen. Thank you so much for taking the extra effort.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2018-01-10 for -12) Unknown
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because, as Alvaro pointed out,  we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the question of what it means in general for a Yang module to be of higher maturity than the protocol it models still stands in the general case. I don't expect that to change for _this_ particular document. ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2018-01-10 for -13) Unknown
Thanks for using the template for the security considerations.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2018-01-05 for -12) Unknown
I don't know what the convention is but this doc does not contain the section describing the tree diagram syntax that YANG docs usually have. Is the agreement to have that in all YANG docs or is it okay to omit it?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown