YANG Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-10-21
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-18.txt |
2024-10-21
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2024-10-21
|
18 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-06
|
17 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-07-14
|
17 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for Implementation from In WG Last Call |
2023-07-06
|
17 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-07-05
|
17 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17.txt |
2023-07-05
|
17 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2023-07-05
|
17 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-16
|
16 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] Thank you for your service … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] 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? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. author: Mahesh Jethanandani https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qxnJxcXerxMmDSIZy7jOfouZPA4/ author: Keyur Patel https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mosRStZU57k5fA0qsdv12Co0FBM/ author: Susan Hares https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/ author: Jeff Haas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/ Contributor: Rob Shakir [missing] contributor: Anees Shaikh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/ contributor: Alex Clemm https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/ Contributor: Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/ Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin [missing] Contributor: Kevin D'Souza (missing) Contributor: Deepak Bansal (missing) 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2023-06-09
|
16 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] Thank you for your service … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] 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? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. author: Mahesh Jethanandani author: Keyur Patel https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mosRStZU57k5fA0qsdv12Co0FBM/ author: Susan Hares https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/ author: Jeff Haas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/ Contributor: Rob Shakir [missing] contributor: Anees Shaikh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/ contributor: Alex Clemm https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/ Contributor: Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/ Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin [missing] Contributor: Kevin D'Souza (missing) Contributor: Deepak Bansal (missing) 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2023-05-23
|
16 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] Thank you for your service … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] 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? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. author: Mahesh Jethanandani author: Keyur Patel (missing) author: Susan Hares https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/ author: Jeff Haas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/ Contributor: Rob Shakir [missing] contributor: Anees Shaikh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/ contributor: Alex Clemm https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/ Contributor: Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/ Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin [missing] Contributor: Kevin D'Souza (missing) Contributor: Deepak Bansal (missing) 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2023-05-23
|
16 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] Thank you for your service … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] 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? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. author: Mahesh Jethanandani author: Keyur Patel author: Susan Hares https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/ author: Jeff Haas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/ Contributor: Rob Shakir [missing] contributor: Anees Shaikh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/ contributor: Alex Clemm https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/ Contributor: Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/ Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin [missing] Contributor: Kevin D'Souza Contributor: Deepak Bansal 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2023-05-22
|
16 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] Thank you for your service … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022. [Note: This report has the IPR references listed] 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? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. author: Mahesh Jethanandani author: Keyur Patel author: Susan Hares https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/ author: Jeff Haas Contributor: Rob Shakir [missing] contributor: Anees Shaikh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/ contributor: Alex Clemm https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/ Contributor: Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/ Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin [missing] Contributor: Kevin D'Souza Contributor: Deepak Bansal 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2023-05-17
|
16 | Susan Hares | These drafts were considered by IDR, but a decision was made to go via Yang 1.0 methods. The initial draft was taken from BGP configurations. |
2023-05-17
|
16 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-zhdankin-netmod-bgp-cfg, draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model instead of draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model |
2023-03-29
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-03-28
|
16 | Jie Dong | Added to session: IETF-116: idr Thu-0030 |
2023-03-01
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-16.txt |
2023-03-01
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2023-03-01
|
16 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-13
|
15 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-15.txt |
2022-10-13
|
15 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2022-10-13
|
15 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-03
|
14 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-14.txt |
2022-07-03
|
14 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2022-07-03
|
14 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-06
|
13 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-13.txt |
2022-03-06
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2022-03-06
|
13 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-25
|
12 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-12.txt |
2021-10-25
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2021-10-25
|
12 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-11
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11.txt |
2021-07-11
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-11
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeffrey Haas , Keyur Patel , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares |
2021-07-11
|
11 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-19
|
10 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-11-15
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10.txt |
2020-11-15
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani) |
2020-11-15
|
10 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-12
|
09 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to jie.dong@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set |
2020-11-12
|
09 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Jie Dong |
2020-08-15
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Review has been revised by Acee Lindem. |
2020-08-15
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Sent review to list. |
2020-07-29
|
09 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem |
2020-07-29
|
09 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem |
2020-07-29
|
09 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
2020-06-28
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt |
2020-06-28
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani , Jeffrey Haas , Keyur Patel , Susan Hares |
2020-06-28
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-26
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-08.txt |
2020-02-26
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-26
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Keyur Patel , Mahesh Jethanandani , Jeffrey Haas , Susan Hares |
2020-02-26
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-03
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-01-19
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Joel Jaeggli was marked no-response |
2019-12-30
|
07 | Andy Bierman | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Andy Bierman. Sent review to list. |
2019-12-10
|
07 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list. |
2019-11-26
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2019-11-26
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2019-11-20
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2019-11-20
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Mike McBride was rejected |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Andy Bierman |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Andy Bierman |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Kent Watsen | Assignment of request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS to Kent Watsen was rejected |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Kent Watsen |
2019-11-18
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Kent Watsen |
2019-11-17
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
2019-11-17
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-11-17
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2019-10-04
|
07 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-07.txt |
2019-10-04
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-04
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: idr-chairs@ietf.org, Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-10-04
|
07 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-13
|
06 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt |
2019-06-13
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-13
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-06-13
|
06 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-25
|
05 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05.txt |
2019-03-25
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-03-25
|
05 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-26
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt |
2019-02-26
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-26
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-02-26
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-26
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel |
2019-02-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-10
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-11-07
|
03 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2018-11-07
|
03 | Susan Hares | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-11-07
|
03 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-11-05
|
03 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-05-09
|
03 | Mahesh Jethanandani | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-03.txt |
2018-05-09
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-09
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Shakir , Anees Shaikh , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Shakir , Anees Shaikh , Alex Zhdankin , Kevin D'Souza , Alex Clemm , Keyur Patel , Deepak Bansal |
2018-05-09
|
03 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-18
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-17
|
02 | Anees Shaikh | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-02.txt |
2016-01-18
|
01 | Alvaro Retana | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-01-07
|
01 | Anees Shaikh | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-01.txt |
2015-08-18
|
00 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model instead of None |
2015-07-06
|
00 | Anees Shaikh | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-00.txt |