Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2020-06-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2020-06-21
Requested 2020-05-30
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Hongji Zhao, Xufeng Liu, Yisong Liu, Mahesh Sivakumar, Anish Peter
Draft last updated 2020-06-18
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)
Assignment Reviewer Reshad Rahman
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2020-06-18
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/FbjYKX2ql3jEVimMLxv4qM8OPFI
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-06-18

Review
review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2020-06-18

YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12 (by Reshad Rahman)
This is my YD review of -12,  I had previously done a review of -05:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2018-06-28/

All major issues raised in previous review have been addressed. The document has become much clearer (extra text, examples etc).

Comments on rev-12:

Introduction. 1st line should reference RFC7950 instead of 6020.

Section on requirements language and normative reference to RFCs 2119/8174 is missing

3. Module structure 

It says xxx-snooping-instance are augmented by this model, but this is incorrect. Did I misunderstand that sentence?

3.1
s/attribute represents/attributes represent/
s/which are configured statically/which are configured/
s/The value of bridge-mrouter-interface/The values of bridge-mrouter-interface/

YANG module:
Features shouldn’t have feature- in their name. All features should have a reference.

There are are groupings which are used only once, e.g. instance-config-attributes-igmp-snooping.

The num-xxx counters should have references.

All the dynamic leaf-lists xxx-router-interface have descriptions which I found lacking. e.g. my understanding is that by snooping/seeing an IMGP or MLD message on an interface/AC/PW that the interface/AC/PW gets added to the right leaf-list? But the description offers no explanation how the dynamic leaf-lists are built.

The augment of control-plane-protocol has when statement inside each of the xxx-snooping-containers. Instead there should be 1 when statement with each augment (1 for each container).

For the clear RPCs, if both source X and group Y are specified, then only source X from group Y in that specific instance is cleared? That should be mentioned in the description.

Security considerations.

Last paragraph (RPC), please mention the impact: flooding. Especially when using wildcard on group and source.

Appendix A

Thanks for adding the examples. It’d help if we also had 1 RPC example, especially explaining what entries are cleared.