Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08-rtgdir-lc-hares-2022-12-12-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2022-11-15 | |
| Requested | 2022-10-25 | |
| Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
| Authors | Hongji Zhao , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , Mani Panchanathan , Mahesh Sivakumar | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-12-12 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -03
by Jan Lindblad
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Susan Hares (diff) Genart Last Call review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Klaas Wierenga (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/V5sLAxYW4Kk1mQhnPcTx812b2QI | |
| Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2022-12-12 |
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08-rtgdir-lc-hares-2022-12-12-00
Revew: Document is readable and matches Yang for 1.1. Status: 1 issue Is it possible that deployments for the filter-mode be require both INCLUDE and EXCLUDE (see pages. 6, 7 and grouping state-group-attribute)? The text says "INCLUDE" or "EXCLUDE". It would be good to know why the authors felt consider the "choice" statement where both "INCLUDE" and "EXCLUDE" would not be possible. Is this due to the normal situation for IGMP-proxy and MLD-Proxy in most deployed? What would happen if both were needed? How can choice be part of an augmentation? Also, this review did not consider the automated tools review.