Skip to main content

A 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.

Alvaro Retana Yes

Warren Kumari No Objection

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2018-01-11 for -13)
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/

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-01-10 for -13)
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2018-01-10 for -12)
[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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -13)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2018-01-10 for -13)
Thanks for using the template for the security considerations.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-01-05 for -12)
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -13)