Subject: [pim] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-yang-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:05:45 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-yang-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[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).