A YANG Data Model for Network Tester Management
draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-17

[Ballot comment]
Section 4, ietf-traffic-analyzer module, capture-statistics-data grouping:

957 >      leaf octets {
958 >        type yang:counter64;
959 >        description
960 >          "This counter is identical with the in-octets/out-octets
961 >            counters defined in RFC8343 except that it counts the
962 >            octets captured since the analyzer was created.";

BTW, one comment, and I will let you decide how you want to address it,
if you want to.

You say the following when describing the container for statistics:

    container statistics {
      description
        "A collection of interface-related statistics objects.
        The counters in this container must be initialized
        to zero when the traffic-analyzer container is created";

You do know that there is a type for that. It is called zero-based-counter64.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 7.2, ietf-traffic-analyzer security template:

1285 > 7.2.  ietf-traffic-analyzer.yang
1286 >
1287 >    Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
1288 >    sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus
1289 >    important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
1290 >    notification) to these data nodes.  Specifically, the following
1291 >    subtrees and data nodes have particular sensitivities/
1292 >    vulnerabilities:
1293 >
1294 >    *  /if:interfaces/if:interface/ntta:traffic-
1295 >      analyzer/ntta:capture/ntta:frames/ntta:frame/ntta:data: is
1296 >      designed for use in testing and verification but can be used for
1297 >      reading information contained in packets sent and received on any
1298 >      of the interfaces on systems that implement the capture feature
1299 >      and, thus, disclose sensitive data.

In my view, Section 7.2 satisfies only one of the three required parts of
the RFC 9907 Section 3.7.1 security template: it addresses sensitive readable
nodes but says nothing about writable nodes. The ietf-traffic-analyzer module
has a non-trivial writable attack surface. An unauthorized actor with write
access to the traffic-analyzer container can enable the packet capture feature
on any interface, configure filter rules to target specific traffic flows,
and read back the captured frames via the state tree. Even though
nacm:default-deny-all is applied to the captured frame/data leaf — protecting
the read path — the write path that enables capture in the first place is not
restricted by that extension and is not discussed in the security section at
all. Please add.

[Ballot comment]
Section 3, ietf-traffic-generator module, feature definition and choice:

400 >    feature multi-stream {
401 >      description
402 >        "The device can generate multi-stream traffic.";
403 >    }

677 >        choice type {
678 >          mandatory true;
679 >          description
680 >            "Choice of the type of the generator:
681 >              Single or multi stream.";
682 >          case single-stream {
683 >            uses burst-data;
684 >            uses modifier-data;
685 >          }
686 >          case multi-stream {
687 >            uses multi-stream-data;
688 >          }
689 >        }

My concern here is that the multi-stream feature is defined but never
referenced in an if-feature statement anywhere in the module. Section 1.2
says multi-stream is optional ("have a mandatory single stream mode and
optional multi stream mode"), but the YANG schema does not enforce this
distinction: the multi-stream case of the choice is available regardless of
whether a server advertises the multi-stream feature. A client has no
machine-readable way to determine whether a given implementation supports
multi-stream, and a server cannot use the feature advertisement mechanism to
signal the absence of support. If the intent truly is that multi-stream is
optional, I would suggest applying if-feature "multi-stream" to the
multi-stream case. If the intent has changed and multi-stream is now mandatory,
the objectives text in Section 1.2 and the feature definition should be
updated accordingly.

---

Section 4, ietf-traffic-analyzer module, capture-statistics-data grouping:

957 >      leaf octets {
958 >        type yang:counter64;
959 >        description
960 >          "This counter is identical with the in-octets/out-octets
961 >            counters defined in RFC8343 except that it counts the
962 >            octets captured since the analyzer was created.";

My concern is that describing this counter as "identical" to the RFC 8343
in-octets/out-octets counters is misleading. RFC 8343's interface counters
accumulate all octets passing through the interface; this counter accumulates
only the octets of frames that were captured (a subset determined by the
capture filter configuration). The difference is not merely one of the
starting point — the populations being counted are fundamentally different.
I think the description would be clearer if it stated directly what this
counter measures rather than defining it by reference to a different counter
that measures something else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may
choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were
flagged by automated tools (via
https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely
be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did
with these suggestions.

Section 2.2.1, paragraph 1:

210 >    The mapping and constraints specification for Ethernet interfaces
211 >    with /if:interfaces/if:interface/if:type identity equal to
212 >    ianaift:ethernetCsmacd is part of the module description statemens.

s/description statemens/description statements/

---

Section 4, ietf-traffic-analyzer module, capture-statistics-data grouping:

960 >          "This counter is identical with the in-octets/out-octets
961 >            counters defined in RFC8343 except that it counts the

s/RFC8343/RFC 8343/

---

Section 4, ietf-traffic-analyzer module, statistics-data grouping,
idle-octets leaf:

843 >          "Total accumulated period with no frame transmission
844 >            taking place measured in octets at the current link
845 >            speed. This counter does not increment only when the
846 >            interface is operating at 100% of its capacity.

The phrase "This counter does not increment only when the interface is
operating at 100% of its capacity" is a double negative that requires
careful parsing. A clearer formulation would be: "This counter increments
whenever the interface is not operating at 100% of its capacity."

---

Appendix A.1, Basic Test Program, pseudocode:

1413 >    net.node("tester0).edit( \

s/net.node("tester0)/net.node("tester0")/

(Missing closing quote on the string literal "tester0".)

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Authors, WG,

# I reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-15. Thank you for the work on this document.

# During the review i observed 4 blocking aspects i would like to DISCUSS a bit more and a set of non-blocking COMMENTS.

# Original Ballot review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/V3IGINW-Ljo-6TtbiKVdApLQfSk/

[DISCUSS#1] closed - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/dBmsF5FGc1qHWFK4DuhnOJHdUmo/]

[DISCUSS#2] Sections 2.2.1 and 3: Ethernet mapping is underspecified and partly embedded only in description statements

The draft says the Ethernet mapping and constraints for ianaift:ethernetCsmacd are “part of the module description statements.” That makes the model hard to use interoperably. Please consider adding a clear subsection that normatively defines, for Ethernet:

- what exactly frame-data contains,
- whether FCS is included in frame-size and frame-data,
- whether implementations may generate/accept bad FCS,
- whether preamble/SFD/IFG are always treated as gap,
- minimum and maximum allowed values for frame-size and gap,
- VLAN-tag handling.

[DISCUSS#3] Section 3: frame-data/FCS behavior is ambiguous

The text says that for Ethernet static test frames, the correct 4-octet FCS is added if frame-data is shorter than frame-size, but also says bad FCS can be generated by specifying frame-data of full frame-size length with the last 4 octets containing a bad FCS. Please clarify whether frame-data includes the FCS or not, and under which exact conditions the implementation computes, appends, overwrites, or preserves the FCS.

[DISCUSS#4] Section 6 / Appendix A.1: pseudo-code appears to delete the wrong node

The example starts traffic on tester0 by creating /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator, but later stops traffic using:

net.node("tester1").edit("delete /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator")

That should probably be tester1, not tester0.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Authors, WG,

# I reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-15. Thank you for the work on this document.

# During the review i observed 4 blocking aspects i would like to DISCUSS a bit more and a set of non-blocking COMMENTS.

[DISCUSS#1] closed - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/dBmsF5FGc1qHWFK4DuhnOJHdUmo/]

[DISCUSS#2] Sections 2.2.1 and 3: Ethernet mapping is underspecified and partly embedded only in description statements

The draft says the Ethernet mapping and constraints for ianaift:ethernetCsmacd are “part of the module description statements.” That makes the model hard to use interoperably. Please consider adding a clear subsection that normatively defines, for Ethernet:

- what exactly frame-data contains,
- whether FCS is included in frame-size and frame-data,
- whether implementations may generate/accept bad FCS,
- whether preamble/SFD/IFG are always treated as gap,
- minimum and maximum allowed values for frame-size and gap,
- VLAN-tag handling.

[DISCUSS#3] Section 3: frame-data/FCS behavior is ambiguous

The text says that for Ethernet static test frames, the correct 4-octet FCS is added if frame-data is shorter than frame-size, but also says bad FCS can be generated by specifying frame-data of full frame-size length with the last 4 octets containing a bad FCS. Please clarify whether frame-data includes the FCS or not, and under which exact conditions the implementation computes, appends, overwrites, or preserves the FCS.

[DISCUSS#4] Section 6 / Appendix A.1: pseudo-code appears to delete the wrong node

The example starts traffic on tester0 by creating /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator, but later stops traffic using:

net.node("tester1").edit("delete /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator")

That should probably be tester1, not tester0.

[Ballot comment]
Changing my ballot position to a non-blocking ABSTAIN as it appears that the discussion has staled per https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/zbhF7KSnEBFiBrJX2_oZJ3g9F5E/

Original DISCUSS & COMMENTS repeated below for archival purposes.

## Original DISCUSS (for archive)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Only for Ethernet ?

The text mainly mentions Ethernet and I think that this is ambiguous (hence the
blocking DISCUSS), if the model is restricted to Ethernet than let's be clear
in the title, abstract, and in the text body (including YANG modules), else
update the text body to avoid being too specific to Ethernet.

It also seems that the model is restricted to framed-based octet-aligned
network, if so then be specific in the title/abstract/introduction.

### BMWG charter fit ?

I fail to see how a (useful) YANG model fits the BMWG WG charter, which
mentions mainly methodologies.

Happy to be corrected by pointing me to the relevant chartered work item.

### Section 2.4

I fear that "testframe-statistics.latency" container misses a lot of relevant
metrics: variance is important (also median albeit less important).

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1.2

While English is not my primary language, I do not think that `This section
specifies the design objectives` is correct, i.e., the section can "list
objectives" or "specify requirements" but not "specify objectives".

### Section 8.1

RFC 2544 is probably informative and not normative.

### Section 8.2

AFAIK, there is a IEEE 802.3 standard dated 2022, so, please use the latest
reference rather than 2014.

### Section A.1

Marking the 'code' as XML2RFC ... would be useful.

Please also indicate (with a reference) which program/application is used in
this example.

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file
format ;-)

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Authors, WG,

# I reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-15. Thank you for the work on this document.

# During the review i observed 4 blocking aspects i would like to DISCUSS a bit more and a set of non-blocking COMMENTS.

[DISCUSS#1] Section 5.2: missing RFC9890 reference for YANG Module Names registry

The IANA text registers modules in the “YANG Module Names” registry and cites RFC6020 only. Current guidance also references RFC9890, which updates YANG module name registration procedures. Please add RFC9890 and cite it in Section 5.2.

[DISCUSS#2] Sections 2.2.1 and 3: Ethernet mapping is underspecified and partly embedded only in description statements

The draft says the Ethernet mapping and constraints for ianaift:ethernetCsmacd are “part of the module description statements.” That makes the model hard to use interoperably. Please consider adding a clear subsection that normatively defines, for Ethernet:

- what exactly frame-data contains,
- whether FCS is included in frame-size and frame-data,
- whether implementations may generate/accept bad FCS,
- whether preamble/SFD/IFG are always treated as gap,
- minimum and maximum allowed values for frame-size and gap,
- VLAN-tag handling.

[DISCUSS#3] Section 3: frame-data/FCS behavior is ambiguous

The text says that for Ethernet static test frames, the correct 4-octet FCS is added if frame-data is shorter than frame-size, but also says bad FCS can be generated by specifying frame-data of full frame-size length with the last 4 octets containing a bad FCS. Please clarify whether frame-data includes the FCS or not, and under which exact conditions the implementation computes, appends, overwrites, or preserves the FCS.

[DISCUSS#4] Section 6 / Appendix A.1: pseudo-code appears to delete the wrong node

The example starts traffic on tester0 by creating /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator, but later stops traffic using:

net.node("tester1").edit("delete /interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/traffic-generator")

That should probably be tester1, not tester0.

[Ballot comment]
1. Section 1.2

The objectives mention latency statistics when dynamic frame data includes a timestamp, and sequence errors when dynamic data includes a sequence number. However, the base model does not define a concrete dynamic testframe format with timestamp or sequence-number fields. Please clarify whether those are intentionally left to augmenting modules, and if so, whether the base analyzer statistics are meaningful without a standardized dynamic frame identity.

2. Section 2.1

The example says a dynamic test frame could contain an 8-octet sequence number followed by a 10-octet IEEE1588 timestamp. Please specify byte order, timestamp format profile/encoding, and epoch expectations, or explicitly state that these are outside the base model.

3. Section 2.2.1

Typo: “statemens” should be “statements”.

4. Section 3

Typo: “inteface” should be “interface”.

5. Section 3: modifier semantics

The modifier leaves define action, offset, mask, and repetitions, but the model does not clearly specify:

- byte order for increment/decrement,
- behavior when the mask spans multiple octets,
- behavior on overflow/underflow,
- whether random is per frame, per repetition group, or per burst,
- ordering when multiple modifiers overlap.

Please add deterministic semantics or state that results are implementation-specific.

6. Section 3: zero values

Several uint32 leaves allow zero: frame-size, gap, burst-gap, frames-per-burst, repetitions, frames-per-stream, stream-gap. Some zero values appear nonsensical or dangerous. Please consider range restrictions or explicit semantics.

7. Section 4: capture-filter base identity has no derived built-in identity

The module defines bit-field-match only for testframe-filter, not for capture-filter. This means the capture filter feature has no built-in usable filter identity unless another module augments it. Please confirm this is intentional.

8. Section 4: state/capture/frames/frame key

The captured frame list is keyed by sequence-number, but there is no description of whether the value starts at 0 or 1, whether it is reset when capture restarts, and how wrap is handled. Please clarify.

9. Section 4: NACM protection

It is good that captured frame data uses nacm:default-deny-all. Please also consider whether capture metadata, timestamps, sizes, and counters can disclose sensitive traffic information and whether the Security Considerations should mention them.

10. Section 6

The sentence “until as many frames as specified by the total-frames leaf when it is present are generated” is hard to parse. Suggested rewrite: “Traffic generation continues until the number of frames specified by total-frames has been generated, or until the traffic-generator container is deleted or changed.”

11. Section 7

The security text says the modules are accessed via “YANG-based transactional management protocols.” Please avoid implying that all YANG-based management protocols are transactional. NETCONF is transactional in the sense needed here; RESTCONF is explicitly called out earlier as not sufficient without additional mechanisms.

13. Appendix A.1

The paths in the example are inconsistent:

- The model defines state/testframe-statistics, but the example uses testframe-stats.
- The analyzer statistics are under traffic-analyzer/state/statistics/pkts, but the example appears to use traffic-analyzer/statistics/pkts in one line.
- The delete path “/interfaces/interface/traffic-analyzer” omits the interface key.

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde
Routing Area Director

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work that has been put into this document.

I support Eric's DISCUSS and had similar questions.

Please also find below an additional non-blocking COMMENT point (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

I think this document could be clearer on the acceptable use. The figures show directly attached devices, which is what I expected, but I would have real concerns with making an open configurable traffic generator available on the general Internet, although the Security Considerations do not seem to currently note this concern. Could this be updated?

Gorry

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Only for Ethernet ?

The text mainly mentions Ethernet and I think that this is ambiguous (hence the blocking DISCUSS), if the model is restricted to Ethernet than let's be clear in the title, abstract, and in the text body (including YANG modules), else update the text body to avoid being too specific to Ethernet.

It also seems that the model is restricted to framed-based octet-aligned network, if so then be specific in the title/abstract/introduction.

### BMWG charter fit ?

I fail to see how a (useful) YANG model fits the BMWG WG charter, which mentions mainly methodologies.

Happy to be corrected by pointing me to the relevant chartered work item.

### Section 2.4

I fear that "testframe-statistics.latency" container misses a lot of relevant metrics: variance is important (also median albeit less important).

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1.2

While English is not my primary language, I do not think that `This section specifies the design objectives` is correct, i.e., the section can "list objectives" or "specify requirements" but not "specify objectives".

### Section 8.1

RFC 2544 is probably informative and not normative.

### Section 8.2

AFAIK, there is a IEEE 802.3 standard dated 2022, so, please use the latest reference rather than 2014.

### Section A.1

Marking the 'code' as XML2RFC ... would be useful.

Please also indicate (with a reference) which program/application is used in this example.

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file format ;-)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-traffic-generator
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-traffic-generator
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-traffic-analyzer
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-traffic-analyzer
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-traffic-generator
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-traffic-generator
Prefix: nttg
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-traffic-analyzer
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-traffic-analyzer
Prefix: ntta
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-06-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg@ietf.org, giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Network Tester Management) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Network Tester
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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-06-11. 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 specifies a YANG data model for use in network
  interconnect testing setups that contains instances of traffic
  generator and traffic analyzer.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-network-tester-cfg/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document received feedback and support from BMWG participants. Therefore,
it has been considered ready to progress.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There were no controversies. The author also presented Hackathon results during
the meetings.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 of appeals and no indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

During the meetings, several test results (even at IETF Hackathon) have been presented:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/slides-117-bmwg-yang-model-for-management-of-network-tester-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-bmwg-yang-model-for-management-of-network-tester-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/slides-120-bmwg-yang-data-model-for-network-tester-management-hackathon-results-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/121/materials/slides-121-bmwg-yang-data-model-for-network-tester-management-hackathon-results-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-bmwg-yang-data-model-for-network-tester-management-00

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document introduces YANG modules for traffic generator and traffic analyzer.
It is in scope of BMWG, since it enables control and monitoring of the data plane
traffic for network testing.
The Chairs also reached out to NMOP and OPSAWG to get more feedback:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/nwNWe5e4yY1LzlEhk07PjmE4jK8/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document required Yangdoctors review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ZKSmfxDCcv4SpzIVIVe5NywuFlY/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kBmd2BzfxbosmhF4vcq7iZb3oEU/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, it has been checked. Yang Validation reported 0 errors, 0 warnings.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

YANG module checked through Yang Validation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I find this document to be well written, and has the correct category.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I do not think that this document has issues with any particular area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is a Standards Track document, which is appropriate for a YANG module
document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author is aware of the requirements, and has not disclosed any IPR
related to the document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, the author is willing to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are I-D nits to be fixed.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are published RFCs and are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No such references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document does not update any other documents.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Yes.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document registers two URIs and two YANG modules. No Designated Expert
Review required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document received feedback and support from BMWG participants. Therefore,
it has been considered ready to progress.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There were no controversies. The author also presented hackathon results during
the meetings.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 of appeals and no indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

During the meetings, several test results have been presented.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document introduces YANG modules for traffic generator and traffic analyzer.
It is in scope of BMWG, since it enables control and monitoring of the data plane
traffic for network testing.
The Chairs also reached out to NMOP and OPSAWG to get more feedback:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/nwNWe5e4yY1LzlEhk07PjmE4jK8/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document required Yangdoctors review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ZKSmfxDCcv4SpzIVIVe5NywuFlY/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kBmd2BzfxbosmhF4vcq7iZb3oEU/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, it has been checked. Yang Validation reported 0 errors, 0 warnings.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

YANG module checked through Yang Validation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I find this document to be well written, and has the correct category.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I do not think that this document has issues with any particular area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is a Standards Track document, which is appropriate for a YANG module
document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author is aware of the requirements, and has not disclosed any IPR
related to the document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, the author is willing to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are I-D nits to be fixed.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are published RFCs and are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No such references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document does not update any other documents.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Yes.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document registers two URIs and two YANG modules. No Designated Expert
Review required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document received feedback and support from BMWG participants. Therefore,
it has been considered ready to progress.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There were no controversies. The author also presented hackathon results during
the meetings.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 of appeals and no indications of discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

During the meetings, several test results have been presented.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This document introduces YANG modules for traffic generator and traffic analyzer.
It is in scope of BMWG, since it enables control and monitoring of the data plane
traffic for network testing.
The Chairs also reached out to NMOP and OPSAWG to get more feedback:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/nwNWe5e4yY1LzlEhk07PjmE4jK8/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This document required Yangdoctors review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ZKSmfxDCcv4SpzIVIVe5NywuFlY/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kBmd2BzfxbosmhF4vcq7iZb3oEU/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, it has been checked. Yang Validation reported 0 errors, 0 warnings.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

YANG module checked through Yang Validation.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, I find this document to be well written, and has the correct category.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

I do not think that this document has issues with any particular area.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This is a Standards Track document, which is appropriate for a YANG module
document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, the author is aware of the requirements, and has not disclosed any IPR
related to the document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, the author is willing to be listed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are I-D nits to be fixed.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are published RFCs and are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No such references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document does not update any other documents.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Yes.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document registers two URIs and two YANG modules. No Designated Expert
Review required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/