Note to Martin:
a) 9 errors listsed- are due to IEEE models not being loaded by IETF datatracker checking.
Qin Wu ha worked through this multiple times, but it is not fixed.
This note is at the top so you see it before any other part of the review.
Susan Hares (shepherd)
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. (2/24/2012)
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) Type of RFC: Proposed Standard
Text has: Standards Track
(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:
This document defines a YANG data model for Layer 2 network topologies.
[RFC8345] defines the YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] data models of the
abstract (generic) network and network topology. Such models can be
augmented with technology-specific details to build more specific
This document defines the YANG data model for Layer 2 (L2) network
topologies by augmenting the generic network (Section 6.1 of
[RFC8345]) and network topology (Section 6.2 of [RFC8345]) data
models with L2-specific topology attributes.
Working Group Summary
I2RS Working group has worked on and revised this draft
from 2015-2020. The working group has had strong consensus
on the model. This model awaited some implementation
feedback which has come in 2019-2020.
The docuemnt has been reviewed by
RTG-DIR: Henning Rogge
Yang-DIR: (Ladislav Lhotka)
Yang tooling errors need to be fixed in IETF work
to allow the appropriate use of IEEE references.
NIT errors seem to come from the same sources.
Implementations of the Yang model are being worked on:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
See link above. There are more planned as the yang models
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?
A discussion the IEEE model link was done
on the list by Tom Petch, Rob Wilton, and
Suresh Krishnan (AD, INT).
Document shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: (current) Martin Vigoureux
(founding AD): Alia Atlas
(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
1) Yang compilation checks examined
2) Nits Examined
3) Yang Doctor's discussion reviewed
4) Walked through Yang text
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
It will go through Yang Doctors + RTG-DIR for a final
time period. The concepts in this document have been
reviewed and discussed for years.
(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
This model depends on the netconf/netmod security architecture
for the NMDA datastore. As such, the concepts for the security
have been walked through. The general topology and L3 model have
been used in operational networks for 4+ years.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure.
(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?
(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.)
(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
NITS warnings occur, but this is a IETF Tools issue.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Yang modules - compile with appropriate files
Yang models - sent through Yang Doctors
Yang models - sent through RTG Yang Review
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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 - new work.
Yang catolog changes based on new Yang models
are consider normal updates.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
Confirmed - normal mechanisms for yang models
a) URI for models
b) module names in YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within
the "YANG Parameters" registry.
URI's for models
966 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2-topology
967 Registrant Contact: The IESG.
968 XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
970 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2-topology-state
971 Registrant Contact: The IESG.
972 XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
Module names for YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
978 name: ietf-l2-topology
979 namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2-topology
980 prefix: l2t
981 reference: RFC XXXX
983 name: ietf-l2-topology-state
984 namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2-topology-state
985 prefix: l2t-s
986 reference: RFC XXXX
(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.
YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within
the "YANG Parameters" registry requires RFC publication.
(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.
Yang compilation and Yang cataloge - [TBD]