Hi Reshad,
I have addressed your comments in draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-20. Please have a check. Thanks a lot.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang/
BR/Hongji
From: Reshad Rahman <reshad@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2021年10月5日 20:07
To: yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx; Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; pim@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19
Thank you Hongji for addressing the coments, all good with me.
Regards,
Reshad.
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, 05:58:21 AM EDT, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
Please check inline. Thanks a lot.
BR/Hongji
-----Original Message-----
From: Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2021年9月30日
11:09
To: yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx
Cc:
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang.all@xxxxxxxx;
last-call@xxxxxxxx; pim@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-19
Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: Ready with Nits
This is my 3rd review of the document. While I have focused on changes done since my last review, some comments apply to parts of the YANG model which hasn't changed recently.
Main comments
=============
- Feature immediate-leave mentions “fast leave” in the description. RFC3376 mentions fast leave but not immediate leave. Should the feature, and the leaf node which depends on it, be renamed to fast-leave?
[Authors] Accepted
- Leaf send-query, description says that it cooperates with parameter querier-source. I believe there should be enforcement that send-query can only be set if querier-source is also set (must statement)? Also querier-source in IGMP mentions VLAN, no such mention
in MLD, is that correct?
[Authors] The description of leaf send-query is not clear and easily causes confusion. It will be updated.
The description of querier-source in both IGMP and MLD part are not proper, and will be updated.
Questions
========
- Feature static-l2-multicast-group. The description mentions L2 multicast static-group. Is it a static multicast group or a multicast static group? I believe it’s the former and the description should be changed?
[Authors] It is static multicast group, and the description will be updated.
- igmp-version and mld-version are both uint8 with a range (1..3 and 1..2). If we get a new version someday, the range will have to be changed. I don’t recall if this was brought up before. Another option is to use an identity. I realize we don’t spin out a
new version frequently so this may not be an issue. And probably with a new version other changes would be needed anyway…
[Authors] Your last statement is what we considered. When new protocol version is introduced, we need a lot of changes.
- Last-reporter is present under the group and also under each source entry. Is the one under the group the last host from all sources?
[Authors] Yes
- Leaf node require-router-alert. What happens if it’s set to true and the IP hdr does not contain RA? Consider updating description and/or adding a reference.
[Authors] In that case, the report messages will be ignored. We will adding a reference.
Minor
=====
- Typo in bridge-router-interface: dynamicly.
[Authors] Accepted
- No need to mention the leaf name in description, e.g. in l2-service-type
[Authors] Accepted
- Leaf “host-address”, rename to “address” since the list is called host (no need to duplicate host).
[Authors] Accepted
Regards,
Reshad.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
