Ballot for draft-ietf-pim-yang
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
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/
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.
[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).
Thanks for using the template for the security considerations.
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?