Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models
draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Modeling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines YANG modules to add support for classifying
   traffic received on interfaces as Ethernet/VLAN framed packets to
   sub-interfaces based on the fields available in the Ethernet/VLAN
   frame headers.  These modules allow configuration of Layer 3 and
   Layer 2 sub-interfaces (e.g. L2VPN attachment circuits) that can
   interoperate with IETF based forwarding protocols; such as IP and
   L3VPN services; or L2VPN services like VPWS, VPLS, and EVPN.  The
   sub-interfaces also interoperate with VLAN tagged traffic originating
   from an IEEE 802.1Q compliant bridge.

   The model differs from an IEEE 802.1Q bridge model in that the
   configuration is interface/sub-interface based as opposed to being
   based on membership of an 802.1Q VLAN bridge.

   The YANG data models in this document conforms to the Network
   Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Lou Berger. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note