Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12
review-ietf-pim-yang-12-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-12-15
Requested 2017-12-01
Other Reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Dean Bogdanovic (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -12 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -12 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder
Review review-ietf-pim-yang-12-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/f3v0Qrh3910D-LY0cs1Yl4tgC4A
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 15)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2017-12-20
Review completed: 2017-12-20

Review
review-ietf-pim-yang-12-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20

I have reviewed this document both as ops-dir reviewer and as yang doctor. A more detailed review has been submitted as part of the yang doctor review. Here I am focusing on more general questions from an operational perspective.

- There are a number of parameters without defined defaults. Is the
  idea that every vendor augments in their defaults? Would it not
  overall be simpler if the PIM WG can find agreement on common
  defaults? (Vendors can still publish deviations I think.)

- I wonder how these YANG modules relate to the PIM MIB modules. Are
  for example counters the same or different? I think it would be good
  if the text would discuss relationship of the YANG modules relate to
  corresponding MIB modules.

-  There are no example configurations provided, demonstration how, for
  example, a simple PIM installation would be configured is not
  present in the document (e.g., as an appendix).