Subject: [pim] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-yang-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:58:20 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-yang-13: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Jürgen, who reminded me that the YANG doctor feedback has not been
addressed or replied to.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20/

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

[removed the entries taken care of in version 13]

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What is the status?

     import ietf-bfd-types {
       prefix "bfd-types";
     }

     grouping interface-config-attributes {
       description
         "A grouping defining interface attributes.";
       container bfd {
         if-feature bfd;
         description
           "BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) operation.";
         uses bfd-types:client-cfg-parms;
       }

>From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07
   grouping client-cfg-parms {
     description
       "BFD grouping for config parameters
        used by clients of BFD, e.g. IGP or MPLS";

     leaf enable {
       type boolean;
       default false;
       description
         "Indicates whether the BFD is enabled.";
     }
     uses base-cfg-parms;
   }

>From Jürgen Schönwälder:

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.)

- 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.

-  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).

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:46:47 -0800

Benoit:

Hi!

Do you have a specific point from Juergen’s review that you want to
highlight in your DISCUSS, or do you just want to make sure that the
feedback is addressed?

If it’s the latter, then there was no need for a DISCUSS; I won’t approve
the document until all the reviews have been addressed.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On January 11, 2018 at 7:58:20 AM, Benoit Claise ([email-masked]) wrote:

Thanks to Jürgen, who reminded me that the YANG doctor feedback has not
been
addressed or replied to.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20/

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:25:37 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

The latter.
Even the YANG AD forgot to doublecheck whether the YANG doctor was 
addressed...
In the pile of emails, it's so easy to forget a directorate review.
Now, this is clearly flagged in the ballot.

Regards, Benoit

> If it’s the latter, then there was no need for a DISCUSS; I won’t 
> approve the document until all the reviews have been addressed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On January 11, 2018 at 7:58:20 AM, Benoit Claise ([email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:
>