Hi Jürgen, Thank you much for the review and comments. We have addressed these issues in the update https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-14. Regards, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Schönwälder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 4:19 PM > To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; pim@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12 > > Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder > Review result: Has Issues > > 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.) [Xufeng] Added defaults as suggested. > > - 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. [Xufeng] Added Section 5 to describe the relationship. > > - 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). [Xufeng] Added an example in Appendix A.
