Skip to main content

Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model
draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-02-05
16 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16.txt
2022-02-05
16 (System) New version approved
2022-02-05
16 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
2022-02-05
16 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-12-06
15 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-15.txt
2021-12-06
15 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2021-12-06
15 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-09
14 Xufeng Liu Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Xufeng Liu. Sent review to list.
2021-10-27
14 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Xufeng Liu
2021-10-27
14 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Xufeng Liu
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

  The intended status is Standards Track. This is the appropriate status because the document defines a YANG module. The type is indicated in the page header.


(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 specifies the Deterministic Networking YANG Model for configuration and operational data for DetNet Flows. The model allows for provisioning of end-to-end DetNet service on devices along the path without dependency on any signaling protocol. It also specifies operational status for flows. An operator or network controller programs the configuration of the devices.


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 normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning.


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?

  Nothing notable.


Document Quality:

  It is a good quality document. The Shepherd is satisfied with the review through WG Last Call and believes the document is ready for IETF Last Call.


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?

  While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there are no publicly known implementations yet.
  The document is one of the key deliverables of the WG to make DetNet happen.
  YANG Doctor provided thorough early review with detailed comments, which all have been addressed.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  János Farkas is the Document Shepherd, John Scudder is the Responsible AD.


(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 Shepherd reviewed this document as part of WG Last Call as well as it progressed through the WG including the open and informal working meetings of the WG to progress the document.  All WG Last Call and early YANG Doctor comments have been addressed.


(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 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?

  Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/v3fTZHSphBQKbpmLs5pkmCQwkbc/.


(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.


(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?

  Very solid.  The document is mature and has been discussed sufficiently.


(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 issues.


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

  A thorough early YANG Doctor review has been provided with detailed comments, which all have been addressed.


(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.

  - RFC 9016 Flow and Service Information Model for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
  - RFC 9055 Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations
  They are required to properly understand and implement the document.
  (See also: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/y6wMHmwRKNpxyp8pAPb0R9Hj54Y/.)


(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 8126).

  The IANA section is consistent and includes detailed specifications for the registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

  The Shepherd checked ID nits and performed YANG validation, which resulted in no errors or warnings.


(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?

  YANG validation resulted in no errors or warnings.

2021-10-26
14 János Farkas Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2021-10-26
14 János Farkas
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

  The intended status is Standards Track. This is the appropriate status because the document defines a YANG module. The type is indicated in the page header.


(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 specifies the Deterministic Networking YANG Model for configuration and operational data for DetNet Flows. The model allows for provisioning of end-to-end DetNet service on devices along the path without dependency on any signaling protocol. It also specifies operational status for flows. An operator or network controller programs the configuration of the devices.


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 normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning.


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?

  Nothing notable.


Document Quality:

  It is a good quality document. The Shepherd is satisfied with the review through WG Last Call and believes the document is ready for IETF Last Call.


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?

  While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there are no publicly known implementations yet.
  The document is one of the key deliverables of the WG to make DetNet happen.
  YANG Doctor provided thorough early review with detailed comments, which all have been addressed.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  János Farkas is the Document Shepherd, John Scudder is the Responsible AD.


(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 Shepherd reviewed this document as part of WG Last Call as well as it progressed through the WG including the open and informal working meetings of the WG to progress the document.  All WG Last Call and early YANG Doctor comments have been addressed.


(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 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?

  Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/v3fTZHSphBQKbpmLs5pkmCQwkbc/.


(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.


(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?

  Very solid.  The document is mature and has been discussed sufficiently.


(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 issues.


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

  A thorough early YANG Doctor review has been provided with detailed comments, which all have been addressed.


(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.

  - RFC 9016 Flow and Service Information Model for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
  - RFC 9055 Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations
  They are required to properly understand and implement the document.
  (See also: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/y6wMHmwRKNpxyp8pAPb0R9Hj54Y/.)


(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 8126).

  The IANA section is consistent and includes detailed specifications for the registry.


(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, YANG modules, etc.

  The Shepherd checked ID nits and performed YANG validation, which resulted in no errors or warnings.


(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?

  YANG validation resulted in no errors or warnings.

2021-10-22
14 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-14.txt
2021-10-22
14 (System) New version approved
2021-10-22
14 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
2021-10-22
14 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-10-04
13 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-13.txt
2021-10-04
13 (System) New version approved
2021-10-04
13 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
2021-10-04
13 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-06-27
12 Xufeng Liu Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Xufeng Liu. Sent review to list.
2021-06-04
12 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Xufeng Liu
2021-06-04
12 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Xufeng Liu
2021-06-04
12 János Farkas Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2021-05-21
12 Lou Berger Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-05-21
12 Lou Berger Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-05-21
12 Lou Berger Notification list changed to janos.farkas@ericsson.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-05-21
12 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to János Farkas
2021-05-19
12 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12.txt
2021-05-19
12 (System) New version approved
2021-05-19
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
2021-05-19
12 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-03-03
11 Ethan Grossman Added to session: IETF-110: detnet  Mon-1530
2021-02-19
11 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-11.txt
2021-02-19
11 (System) New version approved
2021-02-19
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
2021-02-19
11 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-02-18
10 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-10.txt
2021-02-18
10 (System) New version approved
2021-02-18
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
2021-02-18
10 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2020-11-16
09 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-09.txt
2020-11-16
09 (System) New version approved
2020-11-16
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>
2020-11-16
09 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2020-11-13
08 Lou Berger Added to session: IETF-109: detnet  Thu-1430
2020-10-12
08 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-08.txt
2020-10-12
08 (System) New version approved
2020-10-12
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>
2020-10-12
08 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
07 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-07.txt
2020-07-13
07 (System) New version approved
2020-07-13
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Don Fedyk …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>
2020-07-13
07 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2020-06-11
06 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-06.txt
2020-06-11
06 (System) New version approved
2020-06-11
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Reshad Rahman …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
2020-06-11
06 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
05 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-05.txt
2020-03-09
05 (System) New version approved
2020-03-09
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Zhenqiang Li …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>
2020-03-09
05 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
04 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-04.txt
2019-11-04
04 (System) New version approved
2019-11-04
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Yeoncheol Ryoo <dbduscjf@etri.re.kr>
2019-11-04
04 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2019-07-08
03 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-03.txt
2019-07-08
03 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
2019-07-08
03 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2019-03-25
02 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-02.txt
2019-03-25
02 (System) New version approved
2019-03-25
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
2019-03-25
02 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2019-01-14
01 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-01.txt
2019-01-14
01 (System) New version approved
2019-01-14
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
2019-01-14
01 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision
2018-10-24
00 Lou Berger This document now replaces draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang instead of None
2018-10-22
00 Xuesong Geng New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-00.txt
2018-10-22
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-10-22
00 Xuesong Geng Set submitter to "Xuesong Geng <gengxuesong@huawei.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: detnet-chairs@ietf.org
2018-10-22
00 Xuesong Geng Uploaded new revision