Skip to main content

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
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