Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10-rtgdir-lc-jia-2019-02-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-02-08
Requested 2019-01-25
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Mahesh Sivakumar , Pete McAllister , Anish Peter
I-D last updated 2019-11-06 (Latest revision 2019-06-15)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -07 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by He Jia (diff)
Yangdoctors Telechat review of -10 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -12 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Assignment Reviewer He Jia
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2019-02-08
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10-rtgdir-lc-jia-2019-02-08-00
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 2019-02-08
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-08
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Comments:
The draft defines a YANG data model to configure and manage IGMP and MLD
protocols. The model itself is clear. But some clarification are appreciated in
the scope description.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:
1)      In Section 1.3, the sentence before Table 1 seems not completed.
2)      Section 2.1 says “The configuration of IGMP and MLD features, and the
operational state fields and RPC definitions are not all included in this  
document of the data model.” It is not clear whether it is “not all IGMP and
MLD features” or “not all configuration…” I assume the first one but it still
doesn’t give much information of the scope. Is it possible to briefly describe
what are not included? 3)      Section 2.2 mentions “basic subsets of the IGMP
and MLD protocols”. Is the “basic subsets” something that has consensus in
IETF? Otherwise, better to explain what they are in this document.

Thanks!

B.R.

Jia