A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-25
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-11-08
|
25 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Chown. |
2016-11-08
|
25 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-11-05
|
25 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-11-04
|
25 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-11-04
|
25 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-25.txt |
2016-11-03
|
25 | (System) | Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received |
2016-11-03
|
25 | Cindy Morgan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-03
|
24 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-11-03
|
24 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Have you considered including support for the Route Information Option (RFC4191)? Seems like it would be useful. * default-lifetime is … [Ballot comment] * Have you considered including support for the Route Information Option (RFC4191)? Seems like it would be useful. * default-lifetime is defined with a range of 0..9000 in this document but the upper limit will be raised to 65535 if and when draft-ietf-6man-maxra is approved. Is there a mechanism by which you can easily support this increased upper limit? |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-11-02
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-11-02
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. We understands that, upon approval of this document, two registry actions must be completed. First, in the ns subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ three new namespaces are to be registered as follows: ID: yang:ietf-routing URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ID: yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ID: yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate ticket. This registry requires expert approval. Second, in the YANG Module Names registry under the YANG Parameters heading at https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ four new registrations will be made as follows: Name: ietf-routing Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing Prefix: rt Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing Prefix: v4ur Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing Prefix: v6ur Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Name: ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements Namespace: Prefix: Module: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] If there exists a draft for a yang module that augments this in a way that includes cryptographic values (e.g. maybe for an … [Ballot comment] If there exists a draft for a yang module that augments this in a way that includes cryptographic values (e.g. maybe for an IPsec VPN or something) then I think that'd be a nice addition to section 11 as an informative reference. |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-11-02
|
24 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Should the reference to 6536. Be normative? |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-11-01
|
24 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-10-31
|
24 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-10-31
|
24 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-10-29
|
24 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-10-28
|
24 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang |
2016-10-27
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang |
2016-10-25
|
24 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2016-10-22
|
24 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2016-10-22
|
24 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-11-03 |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org, bclaise@cisco.com, lberger@labn.net … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org, bclaise@cisco.com, lberger@labn.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Routing Management) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language WG (netmod) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Routing Management' 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 2016-11-03. 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 contains a specification of three YANG modules and one submodule. Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG modules defining data models for control plane protocols, route filters and other functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks for such extensions -- routes, routing information bases (RIB), and control plane protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Benoît Claise | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Lou Berger | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > 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)? Proposed Standard > Why is this the proper type of RFC? Document describes how an implementation my use TE information and does not define any protocol related formats and behaviors. > Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. > > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one submodule. Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG modules defining data models for control plane protocols, route filters and other functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks for such extensions -- routes, routing information bases (RIB), and control plane protocols. > Working Group Summary > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? This document has been discussed for a very long time within the WG. At this point it has received extensive reviews and has solid consensus behind it. One notable objection can be found [1]. Some of the points are raised and are in the rough, others are addressed in other ways. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html > > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The document has been reviewed by Martin Bjorklund, who is also a YANG doctor. Since the document is heavily touching on routing, specific review was requested (by a previous chair) and lead to a number of changes and another co-author being added to the document. Multiple implementations are reportedly underway. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Lou Berger > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Benoit Claise > > (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 has reviewed the document as part of an extended WG last calls. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. > > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. > (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? A final formal YANG Dr review could be requested, > If so, describe the review that took place. As described above, several reviews from the routing area were solicitated during the development of the document. w> > (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. This publication request was delayed a bit due to the Shepherd considering the impact of the so called OpState discussion and the potential impact of the results expected from the Revised Datastore Design Team. Specifically consideration included the potential for waiting for a full "OpState" solution or revising the model to facilitate future refactoring/revision. Based on input from the authors, the AD, the co-chair, and the DS design team the model is being published as is - which is aligned with the -state convention found in [RFC7223]. > > (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. Yes, see thread at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16626.html > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. No IPR disclosed. > (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? Good consensus after significant review. > (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 threats, but the notable exception indicated by [1]. > > (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. The document passes ID nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A previous chair had the document reviewed by a YANG Dr. an additional formal review could be requested by the AD if he so desires. > (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 section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is appropriate. > (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. In addition, the document was also validated without model issues via http://www.yangvalidator.com/ |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Lou Berger | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg.all@ietf.org from "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Lou Berger | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > 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)? Proposed Standard > Why is this the proper type of RFC? Document describes how an implementation my use TE information and does not define any protocol related formats and behaviors. > Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. > > (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 > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one submodule. Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG modules defining data models for control plane protocols, route filters and other functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks for such extensions -- routes, routing information bases (RIB), and control plane protocols. > Working Group Summary > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? This document has been discussed for a very long time within the WG. At this point it has received extensive reviews and has solid consensus behind it. One notable objection can be found [1]. Some of the points are raised and are in the rough, others are addressed in other ways. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html > > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The document has been reviewed by Martin Bjorklund, who is also a YANG doctor. Since the document is heavily touching on routing, specific review was requested (by a previous chair) and lead to a number of changes and another co-author being added to the document. Multiple implementations are reportedly underway. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Lou Berger > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Benoit Claise > > (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 has reviewed the document as part of an extended WG last calls. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. > > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. > (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? A final formal YANG Dr review could be requested, > If so, describe the review that took place. As described above, several reviews from the routing area were solicitated during the development of the document. w> > (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. This publication request was delayed a bit due to the Shepherd considering the impact of the so called OpState discussion and the potential impact of the results expected from the Revised Datastore Design Team. Specifically consideration included the potential for waiting for a full "OpState" solution or revising the model to facilitate future refactoring/revision. Based on input from the authors, the AD, the co-chair, and the DS design team the model is being published as is - which is aligned with the -state convention found in [RFC7223]. > > (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. Yes, see thread at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16626.html > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. No IPR disclosed. > (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? Good consensus after significant review. > (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 threats, but the notable exception indicated by [1]. > > (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. The document passes ID nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A previous chair had the document reviewed by a YANG Dr. an additional formal review could be requested by the AD if he so desires. > (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 section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is appropriate. > (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. In addition, the document was also validated without model issues via http://www.yangvalidator.com/ |
2016-10-20
|
24 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24.txt |
2016-10-20
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-20
|
23 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Acee Lindem" , "Ladislav Lhotka" |
2016-10-20
|
23 | Ladislav Lhotka | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-14
|
23 | Kent Watsen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2016-08-18
|
23 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23.txt |
2016-07-05
|
22 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-22.txt |
2016-05-19
|
21 | Kent Watsen | Notification list changed to "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> |
2016-05-19
|
21 | Kent Watsen | Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger |
2016-03-17
|
21 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21.txt |
2015-10-16
|
20 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-20.txt |
2015-10-14
|
19 | (System) | Notify list changed from netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org, "Thomas Nadeau" to (None) |
2015-05-25
|
19 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-19.txt |
2015-05-22
|
18 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Notification list changed to netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org, "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> from netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg@ietf.org |
2015-05-22
|
18 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Nadeau |
2015-04-17
|
18 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-18.txt |
2015-03-04
|
17 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-17.txt |
2014-10-26
|
16 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-16.txt |
2014-07-21
|
15 | Benoît Claise | This goes back to the WG after the recent discussions |
2014-07-21
|
15 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Publication Requested |
2014-06-03
|
15 | Benoît Claise | 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 … 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. This is the document writeup for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-15. (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? Proposed Standard (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 three YANG core data models (ietf-routing, ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing, ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing) for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG modules defining data models for individual routing protocols and other related functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks for such extensions - routing instances, routes, routing information bases (RIB), routing protocols and route filters. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning. Document Quality: This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The document has been reviewed by Martin Bjorklund, who is also a YANG doctor. Since the document is heavily touching on routing issues, the following routing area reviews have been obtained: - Early review from the routing area has been requested in Eric Gray provided some helpful feedback. - Further routing area reviews have been requested in 2012. Yi Yang and Thomas Morin provided a review back than. - Further reviews were also requested by I2RS people in 2012. Bruno Rijsman provided a review. - The WG last call been posted to the routing directorate in 2013 and no comments have been received. At least one vendor has indicated to implement this data model for simple routers. The author has worked on an implementation based on the BIRD daemon (almost complete except route filters) and he wrote an XSLT stylesheet for an earlier version of this I-D that translates data into Cisco IOS syntax. Personnel: Juergen Schoenwaelder is the Document Shepherd and 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 documents for correctness after earlier reviews done when the documents were Last Called. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. The document has received several detailed reviews from subject matter experts. (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. As described under (2), several reviews from the routing area were solicitated during the development of the document. (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. The document editor has posted on the mailing list that he is not aware of any IPR affecting this document. (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? There is strong concensus. 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 (those found got fixed before submitting the document) (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 Martin Bjorklund as a YANG Doctor. (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? All normative references are either standards-track documents, BCPs, or I-Ds sitting in the RFC Editor queue. (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 seem appropriate and complete. (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 modules have been compiled with pyang 1.3 using the --ietf option and everything seems to be fine. |
2014-06-03
|
15 | Robert Sparks | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-06-03
|
15 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-lhotka-netmod-routing-cfg/ |
2014-06-03
|
15 | Robert Sparks | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-05-27
|
15 | Jürgen Schönwälder | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-05-25
|
15 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-15.txt |
2014-05-22
|
14 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-14.txt |
2014-01-14
|
13 | Benoît Claise | Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2014-01-14
|
13 | Jürgen Schönwälder | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2014-01-10
|
13 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-13.txt |
2013-12-03
|
12 | Jürgen Schönwälder | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-11-07
|
12 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-12.txt |
2013-10-18
|
11 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-11.txt |
2013-07-13
|
10 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-10.txt |
2013-07-05
|
09 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-02-23
|
09 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-09.txt |
2013-02-11
|
08 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-08.txt |
2013-02-11
|
07 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-07.txt |
2012-11-15
|
06 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-06.txt |
2012-10-04
|
05 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-05.txt |
2012-08-14
|
04 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Changed shepherd to Juergen Schoenwaelder |
2012-07-09
|
04 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-04.txt |
2012-05-25
|
03 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-03.txt |
2012-02-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-02.txt |
2011-09-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-01.txt |
2011-04-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-00.txt |