Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2021-09-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2021-09-28
Requested 2021-09-16
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Hongji Zhao, Xufeng Liu, Yisong Liu, Mahesh Sivakumar, Anish Peter
Draft last updated 2021-09-29
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -05 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -12 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Himanshu Shah (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -19 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Comments
The model was slightly modified by removing some parts of it.  We would appreciate a sanity check from the YANG Drs.   Thanks!
Assignment Reviewer Reshad Rahman 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2021-09-29
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/vgK6E1iAC5JG1yHIzSFZ53_jgsg
Reviewed rev. 19 (document currently at 20)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2021-09-29

Review
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2021-09-29

This is my 3rd review of the document. While I have focused on changes done since my last review, some comments apply to parts of the YANG model which hasn't changed recently. 

Main comments
=============

- Feature immediate-leave mentions “fast leave” in the description. RFC3376 mentions fast leave but not immediate leave. Should the feature, and the leaf node which depends on it, be renamed to fast-leave?

- Leaf send-query, description says that it cooperates with parameter querier-source. I believe there should be enforcement that send-query can only be set if querier-source is also set (must statement)? Also querier-source in IGMP mentions VLAN, no such mention in MLD, is that correct?

Questions
========

- Feature static-l2-multicast-group. The description mentions L2 multicast static-group. Is it a static multicast group or a multicast static group? I believe it’s the former and the description should be changed?

- igmp-version and mld-version are both uint8 with a range (1..3 and 1..2). If we get a new version someday, the range will have to be changed. I don’t recall if this was brought up before. Another option is to use an identity. I realize we don’t spin out a new version frequently so this may not be an issue. And probably with a new version other changes would be needed anyway…

- Last-reporter is present under the group and also under each source entry. Is the one under the group the last host from all sources? 

- Leaf node require-router-alert. What happens if it’s set to true and the IP hdr does not contain RA? Consider updating description and/or adding a reference.

Minor
=====

- Typo in bridge-router-interface: dynamicly.

- No need to mention the leaf name in description, e.g. in l2-service-type

- Leaf “host-address”, rename to “address” since the list is called host (no need to duplicate host).

Regards,
Reshad.