Template date: 2/24/2012
status date: 11/11/2017:
(1) Type of RFC: Standard
Why? Yang data model
(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 an abstract (generic) YANG data model for
network/service topologies and inventories. The model serves as a
base model which is augmented with technology-specific details in
other, more specific topology and inventory models.
Working Group Summary
Working Group has talked about this for 3 years.
Final discussion - was ship it.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
ODL implementation has existed for over 2 years
Vendors planning to implement: Cisco, Ericsson, Huawei, Packet Design, Juniper, some Data Center
Yang doctors review: by Kent Watsen:
Routing-Directorate: by Ines Robles
GEN-ART: Stewart Bryant
1) XML2RFC - template has pre- pre-RFC5378 work - need guidance how to fix
Document Shepherd/WG Chair:
Responsible AD: Alia Atlas
NM AD for Yang: Benoit Claise
Yang doctors review: Kent Watsen:
Routing-Directorate: by Ines Robles
GEN-ART: Stewart Bryant
(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
Shepherd did: NITS, IPR check, IANA check, RFC 2119 change, check for interaction with other documents.
Shepherd resolved all comments, discussed repeated, debated.
This model is both capable for NMDA. It can be deployed in ephemeral datastore or configuration datastore.
It is created with an awareness of TEAS.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
RTG-DIR Review: Ines Robles
Yang Doctor's review: Kent Watsen
OPS-DIR and SEC-DIR should review this model in the normal course of IETF-LC
(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
Yang Doctors (already done), RTG-DIR (already done),
OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, GEN-ART (already done).
(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
NMDA model - allowed to be used in config or dynamic datastore.
Designed for ephmeral datastore.
(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 filed on the draft.
(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?
Solid discussion for 3+ years. The IETF has exhausted the I2RS group
as it pushed the NMDA architecture along before this model.
The victory of finally getting all this work done is sweet to the WG and the WG chair.
This is a critical model for yang models.
(10) 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.)
(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
No real ones. Yang validates. The nits tool needs to be fixed.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
1) Automatic check of yang modules.
2) RTG-DIR and Yang Doctor's review done.
3) Shepherd check the high-logic against the routing-configuration, OPSTATE, and ephemeral state requirements
(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?
All normative references are valid.
(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 change to existing status. This is new work.
(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).
IANA section needs to be fixed. Once it is fixed, an early IANA review will be requested.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No registry added in this document.
(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.
Check on the Yang is automated at submission.