A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link
draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-13

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd write-up says that there have been normative references to non-IETF docs which seem to have been removed now. I wondering is that is correct. I'm by far not an expert and didn't have time to review this doc in detail but I would think that you would need to know some details of these on-IETF specs in-order to fully understand and correctly implement this YANG model, no?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this!

IDNits notes that the draft has the 2119/8174 boilerplate, but does not use normative keywords outside of the boilerplate.

[Ballot discuss]
A fairly minor point, really, but several of the nodes within "container
error-performance-statistics" discuss "the interval" or "a fixed
measurement interval".  These values are not interoperable unless the
interval (or the way to determine it) is specified.  My understanding is
that normally this sort of counter would be using the interval since last
startup, and would also track the time of last discontinuity (i.e.,
startup), but I am not really an expert in this area.

[Ballot comment]
Please expand TDM on first usage.

      leaf carrier-id {
        type string;
        default "A";
        description
          "ID of the carrier. (e.g. A, B, C or D)
            Used in XPIC & MIMO configurations to check that
            the carrier termination is connected to the correct
            far-end carrier termination. Should be the same
            carrier ID on both sides of the hop.
            Defaulted when not MIMO or XPIC.";
      }

nit: I think the "Defaulted when" statement might be better as "Left as
default value when MIMO and XPIC are not in use"
Alternately, only expose the node under the appropriate if-features?

      choice freq-or-distance {
        [...]
        description
          "A choice to configure rx-frequency directly or by computing
            it as tx-frequency subtracted with the configured
            duplex-distance." ;
      }

nit: what does "subtracted with" mean?  Normally I see "subtract A from B"
to indicate which operand is added with negation.

, but I am not really an expert in this area.ow was the range of -99 to 99 dBm for the
maximum-nominal-power/actual-transmitted-level/etc. nodes selected?
Similarly, is there a physical limit that makes -20dBm the cap for
actual-received-level?  Even if I have an unrealistic situation of the
antennas separated by just a meter or two?  (Other nodes, e.g., max-rltm,
may have similar questions posed, too.)

        leaf bbe {
          type yang:counter32;
          units "number of block errors";
          description
            "Number of Background Block Errors (BBE) during the
            interval. A BBE is an errored block not occurring as
            part of an SES.";

SES is not expanded until two leafs later.

Section 7

nit: I know this is the standard boilerplate, but in:

  The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
  that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such

we have a singular/plural mismatch, since this document specifies multiple
YANG modules, which define schemas for data, and are designed to be
accessed[...].

  Interfaces of type radio-link-terminal:
      /if:interfaces/if:interface/carrier-terminations,
      /if:interfaces/if:interface/rlp-groups,
      /if:interfaces/if:interface/xpic-pairs,
      /if:interfaces/if:interface/mimo-groups, and
      /if:interfaces/if:interface/tdm-connections:

not the 'mode' sibling as well?

Appendix A

I guess this is really a matter of style, so arguably I shouldn't be saying
anything, but it is a bit confusing to me to have the '-' present in the
identifiers for the boxes in the figures (e.g., "Carrier Termination -1",
"Radio Link Terminal -B") -- I see that the '-' is present as a separator
in the actual YANG field data, but humans can typically add/remove the
separator as needed.  (Also, the figures are inconsistent about whether
it's "- A" or "-A".)

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

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

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

three, new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

As this document requests registrations in an Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

three, new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-microwave-radio-link
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-microwave-radio-link
Prefix: mrl
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-interface-protection
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interface-protection
Prefix: ifprot
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-microwave-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-microwave-types
Prefix: mw-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entry for the registry value "Maintained by IANA?" for each of these new YANG modules?

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

The IANA Functions Operator 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, Fatai Zhang , draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org, zhangfatai@huawei.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for
Microwave Radio Link'
  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 2018-10-02. 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 defines a YANG data model for control and management of
  the radio link interfaces, and their connectivity to packet
  (typically Ethernet) interfaces in a microwave/millimeter wave node.
  The data nodes for management of the interface protection
  functionality is broken out into a separate and generic YANG data
  model in order to make it available also for other interface types.

RFC Ed.  Note

  // RFC Ed.: replace all XXXX throughout the document with actual RFC
  numbers and remove this note




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang/ballot/


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

> 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)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It contains a new YANG model and has impact on other on-wire behavior.

>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 defines a YANG data model for control and management of
  the radio link interfaces, and their connectivity to packet
  (typically Ethernet) interfaces in a microwave/millimeter wave node.
 

> 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 work has occupied good attention and has been discussed deeply within the WG.

>
> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification?

The model was implemented in IETF 99 Hackathon with joint effort from mulitple vendors.

> 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?
>

There has been reasonable discusson on list about the document both
before and as part of LC.  A YANG Doctor review has been conducted per
normal process.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Fatai Zhang

> Who is the Responsible Area  Director?
>

Deborah Brungard

> (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.

I reviewed the document both as it was progressing and in it's final
form.  I also checked the output Yang Validation (via data tracker)
returned no errors, and ID nits returned no errors and no flaws.

>
> (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.
>

Only the YANG Docotor review, which has been completed.


> (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

>
> (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.

>
> (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? 

Generally solid, with a reasonable number being interested in and
reviewing this work. No objections.

>
> (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

ID nits passed.

>
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>
See above WRT YANG Doctors (review requested per process.)

> (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.

The draft use a few non-IETF standards as normative reference. I will ask
the authors to correct on that.

>
> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs?

No.

> Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

N/A

> 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.

N/A

>
>
> (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).
>
For ietf-microwave-radio-link, ietf-interface-protection and ietf-microwave-types, the IANA
section is consistent and matches the general form recommended in
RFC6087bis.

> (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.
>

I checked the output of Yang Validation (via data tracker) and online
ID nits.

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Lm5vaUphsI7Skl3eCFzqGoxMFhg

AUTHORS

Jonas Ahlberg jonas.ahlberg@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/W3WmcdFC1MrHgaUzLyDHRNWhWiA
Ye Min amy.yemin@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/43plVP5yMwvD0E7EZPGtNKIZJ4c
Xi Li Xi.Li@neclab.eu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Td2G8DyFzRLCnekul3sciHuBLbA
Marko Vaupotic Marko.Vaupotic@Aviatnet.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Ezl62BDgMFUeNLKhylTZAkZcXgo
Daniela Spreafico daniela.spreafico@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/UxIzcisCdJc8J9Z6etkBCLqITVw
Koji Kawada k-kawada@ah.jp.nec.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/P2NW05ILizoTlkzuak1ElGAcEJc
Carlos J. Bernardos cjbc@it.uc3m.es https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/z1dYak91xCJm-y9jn7bj9jq8f70

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Daniela Spreafico , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carlos Bernardos , Marko Vaupotic , Daniela Spreafico , Min Ye , Koji Kawada , Xi Li , Jonas Ahlberg