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 rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-02-08
Requested 2019-01-25
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Draft last updated 2019-02-08
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -07 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by He Jia (diff)
Yangdoctors Telechat review of -10 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Dale Worley (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -12 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Assignment Reviewer He Jia
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10-rtgdir-lc-jia-2019-02-08
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-02-08

Review
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-10-rtgdir-lc-jia-2019-02-08

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