: (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.
This RFC is intended to define a Yang module for managing the BFD protocol
and its common interactions with other modules using BFD.
: (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:
From the Abstract:
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
: 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.
:
: Working Group Summary:
The best summary is included as part of the Updates section:
This version of the draft updates the 'ietf-bfd-types' module to
define a new feature called 'client-base-cfg-parms and a 'if-feature'
statement that conditionally includes definition of parameters such
as 'multiplier' or 'desired-min-tx-interval'. The feature statement
allows YANG implementations of protocol such as OSPF, ISIS, PIM and
BGP, to support both a model where such parameters are not needed,
such as when multiple BFD sessions are supported over a given
interface, as well as when they need to be defined per session. As a
result, the BFD MPLS module has to use the base-cfg-parms instead of
client-cfg-parms to be able to include all the parameters
unconditionally.
: 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?
While the desired YANG changes were very small, this update is occurring a
short time after the original publication of RFC 9127. It was decided to, as
much as possible, to simply re-issue RFC 9127 to avoid potential confusion
about the authoritative contents of the YANG modules for BFD.
Consultation with the YANG doctors did indicate that a smaller document
containing only the minimum required updates was an option. However, the
authors and the interested parties in the Working Group participating in the
discussion pushed for the larger document.
The primary consideration that kept this document from being a simple copy and
paste of the original RFC 9127 with the minor necessary changes was the
iana-bfd-types module which was previously delegated to IANA in RFC 9127, and
thus not eligible for re-publication in this document.
: 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, YANG 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 module is intended to be leveraged both as the BFD management module along
with providing BFD configuration for other IETF modules. It was as part of
assessing impacts on other routing protocols that the motivating work for this
update was discovered.
The YANG doctors were consulted as part of this work, but no formal review was
requested. Since this is largely a republication of RFC 9127, it is presumed
that prior work this is based upon is well reviewed.
: Personnel:
:
: Who is the Document Shepherd?
Jeffrey Haas.
: Who is the Responsible Area Director?
John Scudder.
: (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.
This document is largely based upon text from a recently shipped RFC. Thorough
review of the changes have been done both by the shepherd, the authors, and
review has been solicited from the Working Group.
: (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? 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.
No specific concerns.
: (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?
As a re-issue of RFC 9127, prior disclosures apply.
: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
: summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
As a re-issue of RFC 9127, prior disclosures apply.
: (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?
BFD is a small working group with deep expertise in the technologies. YANG
modules are a further specialization and IETF-wide expertise in the language
and modeling considerations is small. Given these factors, review has been
reasonable.
: (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.
No unexpected nits.
: (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
: such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The MIB Doctors were polled for the direction for updating RFC 9127 and
feedback was supplied.
: (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 (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.
Yes, this updates RFC 9127.
: (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 8126).
This document updates prior registrations related to the YANG models previously
associated with RFC 9127, as much as possible. The prior IANA delegated model
is not updated.
: (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.
No new registries.
: (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, YANG modules, etc.
The github repo for this work makes using of pyang and yanglint as part of the
document creation process.
: (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
: any of the recommended validation tools
: (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
: formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
: the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
: comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
: in RFC8342?
Yes, see above.