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

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:32:05 -0800

Benoit Claise 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Yes, the security considerations section must be updated, as mentioned by Kathleen.
- For consistency reasons, you want a section such as
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-02#section-1.3
    or
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08#section-2.2
- section 1, first paragraph, mentions RESTCONF next to NETCONF
- If you update the draft, the following entry is now an RFC

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-routing-types]
              Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
              "Routing Area Common YANG Data Types", draft-ietf-rtgwg-
              routing-types-17 (work in progress), October 2017.

- 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).