IANA Timezone Database YANG Module
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has questions about one of the actions in this document.

The IANA Considerations section requests the creation of a new registry which is based entirely on the contents of the Time Zone Database. IANA understands that the authors request that, as the Time Zone Database is maintained, the new registry would be updated to reflect and mirror those changes.

However, unlike typical registries, the TZ database it is not an XML file; it is instead posted as a zipped archive of 23 files that are updated by the Time Zone Coordinator, rather than by IANA personnel.

(It should be added here that keeping even XML-based registries in lockstep is currently a manual, internal-comment-based process rather than an automatic one.)

IANA Question: IANA is consulting with the Time Zone Coordinator and ICANN personnel on this issue, but can the authors propose a mechanism that would ensure that the TZ Database and the new registry remain in lockstep?

In addition to the new registry proposed by this document, there are two other actions that IANA needs to complete upon approval of this document.

First, in the namespaces subregistry of the IETF XML registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry

one new URI is to be registered as follows:

ID: yang:iana-timezones
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-timezones
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters page att

http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters

a new YANG Module Name will be registered as follows:

Name: iana-timezones
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-timezones
Prefix: ianatz
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the new registry and the two actions above are the only actions required upon approval.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Timezone Database YANG Module) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Timezone Database YANG Module'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines the initial version of the iana-timezones YANG
  module.  The iana-timezones YANG module defines the iana-timezone
  type, which is a serialization of the existing IANA Time Zone
  registry into YANG format.  The document provides instructions to
  IANA how to maintain the iana-timezones YANG module when the
  underlying Time Zone registry is updated.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

  Publication of draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-03 as Proposed Standard
  is requested. This is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document defines the initial version of the iana-timezones YANG
  module. The iana-timezones YANG module defines the iana-timezone
  type, which is a serialization of the existing IANA Time Zone
  registry into YANG format. The document provides instructions to
  IANA how to maintain the iana-timezones YANG module when the
  underlying Time Zone registry is updated.

Working Group Summary:

  The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
  consensus with nothing special worth mentioning.

Document Quality:

  This document received proper review within the working group.
  Some working group members have indicated that they plan to
  implement this data model once approved by the IESG.

Personnel:

  Juergen Schoenwaelder is the Document Shepherd.
  Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed the document for correctness after
  earlier reviews done when the document was Last Called.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No. The netmod working group has a healthy cooperative spirit and
  reviews were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  We have not received any IPR disclosures. We believe that the author/editor
  understands the IETF rules regarding IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  This document has strong consensus. This is not a large working
  group but it is an active and diverse working group with many
  contributing individuals.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  None except a few lines that are a few characters too long (requires
  minor edits to change the line break).

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  This document has been reviewed by people who are also YANG
  doctors. As such, further YANG doctor reviews do not seem to be
  needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations have been reviewed and they are believed to
  be sufficiently clear. The document does not create a new registry.
  It instead defines rules how the YANG serialization of the IANA Time
  Zone registry must be managed be IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  The YANG module has been checked using pyang v1.3.