A YANG Data Model for In-Situ OAM
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-13

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang and RFC 9617, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document,  I noted that this document hadn't had a recent YANG doctor review.  I have a few suggestions for you to consider that may improve the YANG.


Minor level comments:

(1) p 3, sec 3.1.  Overview

  The "ioam-info" is a container for all the read-only information that
  assists monitoring systems in the interpretation of the IOAM data.
  module: ietf-ioam
      +--rw ioam
        +--ro ioam-info
        |  +--ro timestamp-type?        identityref
        |  +--ro available-interface* [if-name]
        |    +--ro if-name    if:interface-ref
        +--rw ioam-profiles

Please rename the 'ioam-info' container to 'info' and 'ioam-profiles' to 'profiles', and 'ioam-profile' to 'profile'.  This will make the paths shorter and reduce duplicate semantic information on the path.


(2) p 3, sec 3.1.  Overview

            +--rw admin-config
            |  +--rw enabled?  boolean

Please move 'admin-config' outside of the ioam-profiles container, so that the container is only wrapping the list entry.


(3) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

        description
          "This boolean value indicates whether the sequence number is
            used in the direct export option 32-bit flow identifier. If
            this value is true, the sequence number is used. By default,
            it's turned off.";
      }
    }

Are you allowed to set both enable-sequence-number and a flow-id?  If not, then it might be worth adding text to this effect.


(4) p 20, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

            leaf enabled {
              type boolean;
              default false;
              description
                "When true, apply incremental tracing option to the
                  specified flow identified by the filter.";
            }

You have several similar containers that all an "enabled" leaf, which defaults to false.  Did you consider setting these containers as presence containers instead? Which would remove the need for the enable leaf, since the existence of the container in the config would indicate that it is enabled.



Nit level comments:

(5) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

      leaf node-action {
        type ioam-node-action;
        default action-transit;
        description "This indicates what action the node will take,
        e.g. encapsulation.";

Description isn't properly formatted (although the RFC editor should also fix this).


(6) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

        description
          "A 32-bit flow identifier. The field is set at the
            encapsulating node. The Flow ID can be uniformly assigned
            by a central controller or algorithmically generated by the
            encapsulating node. The latter approach cannot guarantee
            the uniqueness of Flow ID, yet the conflict probability is
            small due to the large Flow ID space.flow-id is used to
            correlate the exported data of the same flow from multiple
            nodes and from multiple packets.";
      }

".flow-id" => ". flow-id"


(7) p 23, sec 5.  Security Considerations

  *  /ioam/ioam-profiles/ioam-profile: The entries in the list above
      include the whole IOAM profile configurations.  Unexpected changes
      to these entries could lead to the mistake of the IOAM behavior
      for the corresponding flows.  Consequently, it will impact the
      performance monitoring, data analytics, and the assciated reaction
      to network services.

assciated => associated

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document,  I noted that this document hadn't had a recent YANG doctor review.  I have a few suggestions for you to consider that may improve the YANG.


Minor level comments:

(1) p 3, sec 3.1.  Overview

  The "ioam-info" is a container for all the read-only information that
  assists monitoring systems in the interpretation of the IOAM data.
  module: ietf-ioam
      +--rw ioam
        +--ro ioam-info
        |  +--ro timestamp-type?        identityref
        |  +--ro available-interface* [if-name]
        |    +--ro if-name    if:interface-ref
        +--rw ioam-profiles

Please rename the 'ioam-info' container to 'info' and 'ioam-profiles' to 'profiles', and 'ioam-profile' to 'profile'.  This will make the paths shorter and reduce duplicate semantic information on the path.


(2) p 3, sec 3.1.  Overview

            +--rw admin-config
            |  +--rw enabled?  boolean

Please move 'admin-config' outside of the ioam-profiles container, so that the container is only wrapping the list entry.


(3) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

        description
          "This boolean value indicates whether the sequence number is
            used in the direct export option 32-bit flow identifier. If
            this value is true, the sequence number is used. By default,
            it's turned off.";
      }
    }

Are you allowed to set both enable-sequence-number and a flow-id?  If not, then it might be worth adding text to this effect.


(4) p 20, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

            leaf enabled {
              type boolean;
              default false;
              description
                "When true, apply incremental tracing option to the
                  specified flow identified by the filter.";
            }

You have several similar containers that all an "enabled" leaf, which defaults to false.  Did you consider setting these containers as presence containers instead, which would remove the need for the enable leaf, since the existence of the container in the config would indicate that it is enabled.



Nit level comments:

(5) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

      leaf node-action {
        type ioam-node-action;
        default action-transit;
        description "This indicates what action the node will take,
        e.g. encapsulation.";

Description isn't properly formatted (although the RFC editor should also fix this).


(6) p 17, sec 4.  IOAM YANG Module

        description
          "A 32-bit flow identifier. The field is set at the
            encapsulating node. The Flow ID can be uniformly assigned
            by a central controller or algorithmically generated by the
            encapsulating node. The latter approach cannot guarantee
            the uniqueness of Flow ID, yet the conflict probability is
            small due to the large Flow ID space.flow-id is used to
            correlate the exported data of the same flow from multiple
            nodes and from multiple packets.";
      }

".flow-id" => ". flow-id"


(7) p 23, sec 5.  Security Considerations

  *  /ioam/ioam-profiles/ioam-profile: The entries in the list above
      include the whole IOAM profile configurations.  Unexpected changes
      to these entries could lead to the mistake of the IOAM behavior
      for the corresponding flows.  Consequently, it will impact the
      performance monitoring, data analytics, and the assciated reaction
      to network services.

assciated => associated

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.5.  Editorial
  The "pot-profile" contains
  the detailed information for the proof of transit data.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “The ‘pot-profile is intended to contain the detailed information …”.  As defined now, it contains no details.

** Section 5
  /ioam/ioam-profiles/ioam-profile

  The entries in the list above include the whole IOAM profile
  configurations which indirectly create or modify the device
  configurations.  Unexpected changes to these entries could lead to
  the mistake of the IOAM behavior for the corresponding flows.

Since this section is discussing Security Considerations, what are the security consequences of “mistake[n] … IOAM behavior”?  Is any of the scope of the Security Considerations of RFC9197 relevant?

**Section 5.  This text has no discussion of sensitivities to reading this YANG modules?  Is there any risk in a completely readable version of this YANG module?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-11

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Marcus Ihlar for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Missing NMDA statement

While I am not a YANG expert, there are often a statement whether NMDA is supported by the data model(s) under specification. Should this be the case here as well ?

## Section 1

Should the reference to NSH and IPv6 already be in this section rather than later in section 3.1 ?

## Section 3.3

Does incremental tracing require a "max-length" defined at encapsulation mode ? Conversely, should 'max-length' be renamed into 'length' for the pre-allocated ? (of course at the expense of having two leaves rather than one).

## Section 3.5

May I assume that there is no 'namespace' associated with the PoT profile type ?

## Section 4

Suggest to add leading text stating that the YANG module refers to RFC 8343 and 8532 to avoid id-nits warning messages.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 3.1

s/read only information/read-only information/ ?

Unsure how to parse `IOAM actions MUST be driven by the accepted packets`

## Appendix A

s/Hop by Hop/Hop-by-Hop/

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

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

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

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

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

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-yang@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for In-Situ OAM) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for In-Situ OAM'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-05. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is an
  example of an on-path hybrid measurement method.  IOAM defines a
  method to produce operational and telemetry information that may be
  exported using the in-band or out-of-band method.  RFC9197 and
  RFC9326 discuss the data fields and associated data types for IOAM.
  This document defines a YANG module for the configuration of IOAM
  functions.




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


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3532/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

It represents a broad agreement from the subset of the working group concerned
with IOAM.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are no current implementations of this document to the knowledge of the
shepherd.

## 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.

IOAM is largely defined in the IPPM wg and this is where the expertise resides.
There has been an early YANG Doctor review.

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.

The document contains a YANG module and must therefore receive a YANG Doctor
review.
A Yang Doctor review was performed on version 03 of the draft. The result was:
Ready with issues. A number of minor issues were identified and addressed in
subsequent revisions. Since there will be an additional YANG Doctor review later
in the process the WG chairs did not see the need for requesting a new review in
conjunction with the working group last call.

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]?

Using the online YANG Validator the tools listed below all reported No warnings or
errors: 
* ***confd:** confd-8.0   
* **pyang:** 2.5.3    
* **xym:** 0.7.0    
* **yangdump:** 21.10-12    
* **yanglint:** 2.1.111

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.
n/a
## 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?

Yes, this document adds on to the largely mature suite of documents describing
IOAM. It has been discussed and reviewed by the community and there is a
clearly stated need for it. The nits observed below have been addressed, an
early YANG doctors review has been performed.

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?

The document contains a YANG model. It has received a YANG doctors review.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is an addition to the set of RFCs that describe IOAM.
This document describes how to configure IOAM nodes. Proposed Standard is
a reasonable RFC type.

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.

To my knowledge all required disclosures have been filed. The authors have all
indicated that they are not aware of any further IPRs that require declaration
against this document.

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.

Yes

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.)

Update: The observed nits were fixed in revision 10 of the document.

Two references are outdated:
* draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options -> RFC 9486
* draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh -> RFC 9452

Two references in the Normative references section are defined but not used in the
document:

* RFC 8343
* RFC 8532

Additional nits:

YANG model:

The associated description to "grouping ioam-preallocated-tracing-profile"
looks like a copy paste error:
"A grouping for incremental tracing profile."



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

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.

n/a

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

The document requests IANA to assign an XML URI and a YANG model name.
The registries are clearly identified.
The respective registration procedures are followed correctly.


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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

It represents a broad agreement from the subset of the working group concerned
with IOAM.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are no current implementations of this document to the knowledge of the
shepherd.

## 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.

IOAM is largely defined in the IPPM wg and this is where the expertise resides.
There has been an early YANG Doctor review.

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.

The document contains a YANG module and must therefore receive a YANG Doctor
review.
A Yang Doctor review was performed on version 03 of the draft. The result was:
Ready with issues. A number of minor issues were identified and addressed in
subsequent revisions. Since there will be an additional YANG Doctor review later
in the process the WG chairs did not see the need for requesting a new review in
conjunction with the working group last call.

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]?

Using the online YANG Validator the tools listed below all reported No warnings or
errors: 
* ***confd:** confd-8.0   
* **pyang:** 2.5.3    
* **xym:** 0.7.0    
* **yangdump:** 21.10-12    
* **yanglint:** 2.1.111

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.
n/a
## 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?

Yes, this document adds on to the largely mature suite of documents describing
IOAM. It has been discussed and reviewed by the community and there is a
clearly stated need for it. The nits observed below have been addressed, an
early YANG doctors review has been performed.

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?

The document contains a YANG model. It has received a YANG doctors review.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is an addition to the set of RFCs that describe IOAM.
This document describes how to configure IOAM nodes. Proposed Standard is
a reasonable RFC type.

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.

To my knowledge all required disclosures have been filed. The authors have all
indicated that they are not aware of any further IPRs that require declaration
against this document.

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.

Yes

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.)

Update: The observed nits were fixed in revision 10 of the document.

Two references are outdated:
* draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options -> RFC 9486
* draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh -> RFC 9452

Two references in the Normative references section are defined but not used in the
document:

* RFC 8343
* RFC 8532

Additional nits:

YANG model:

The associated description to "grouping ioam-preallocated-tracing-profile"
looks like a copy paste error:
"A grouping for incremental tracing profile."



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

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.

n/a

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

The document requests IANA to assign an XML URI and a YANG model name.
The registries are clearly identified.
The respective registration procedures are followed correctly.


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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

It represents a broad agreement from the subset of the working group concerned
with IOAM.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are no current implementations of this document to the knowledge of the
shepherd.

## 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.

IOAM is largely defined in the IPPM wg and this is where the expertise resides.
There has been an early YANG Doctor review.

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.

The document contains a YANG module and must therefore receive a YANG Doctor
review.
A Yang Doctor review was performed on version 03 of the draft. The result was:
Ready with issues. A number of minor issues were identified and addressed in
subsequent revisions.

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]?

Using the online YANG Validator the tools listed below all reported No warnings or
errors: 
* ***confd:** confd-8.0   
* **pyang:** 2.5.3    
* **xym:** 0.7.0    
* **yangdump:** 21.10-12    
* **yanglint:** 2.1.111

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.
n/a
## 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?

Yes, this document adds on to the largely mature suite of documents describing
IOAM. It has been discussed and reviewed by the community and there is a
clearly stated need for it. The nits observed below have been addressed, an
early YANG doctors review has been performed.

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?

The document contains a YANG model. It has received a YANG doctors review.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is an addition to the set of RFCs that describe IOAM.
This document describes how to configure IOAM nodes. Proposed Standard is
a reasonable RFC type.

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.

To my knowledge all required disclosures have been filed. The authors have all
indicated that they are not aware of any further IPRs that require declaration
against this document.

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.

Yes

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.)

Update: The observed nits were fixed in revision 10 of the document.

Two references are outdated:
* draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options -> RFC 9486
* draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh -> RFC 9452

Two references in the Normative references section are defined but not used in the
document:

* RFC 8343
* RFC 8532

Additional nits:

YANG model:

The associated description to "grouping ioam-preallocated-tracing-profile"
looks like a copy paste error:
"A grouping for incremental tracing profile."



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

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.

n/a

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

The document requests IANA to assign an XML URI and a YANG model name.
The registries are clearly identified.
The respective registration procedures are followed correctly.


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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

It represents a broad agreement from the subset of the working group concerned
with IOAM.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.)

No.

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.

IOAM is largely defined in the IPPM wg and this is where the expertise resides.
There has been an early YANG Doctor review.

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.

The document contains a YANG module and must therefore receive a YANG Doctor
review.
A Yang Doctor review was performed on version 03 of the draft. The result was:
Ready with issues. A number of minor issues were identified and addressed in
subsequent revisions.

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]?

Using the online YANG Validator the tools listed below all reported No warnings or
errors: 
* ***confd:** confd-8.0   
* **pyang:** 2.5.3    
* **xym:** 0.7.0    
* **yangdump:** 21.10-12    
* **yanglint:** 2.1.111

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.
n/a
## 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?

The document contains a YANG model. It has been reveiwed.

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?

Proposed Standard. This is an addition to the set of RFCs that describe IOAM.
This document describes how to configure IOAM nodes. Proposed Standard is
a reasonable RFC type.

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.

To my knowledge all required disclosures have been filed. The authors have all
indicated that they are not aware of any further IPRs that require declaration
against this document.

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.

Yes

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.)

Two references are outdated:
* draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options -> RFC 9486
* draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh -> RFC 9452

Two references in the Normative references section are defined but not used in the
document:

* RFC 8343
* RFC 8532

Additional nits:

YANG model:

The associated description to "grouping ioam-preallocated-tracing-profile"
looks like a copy paste error:
"A grouping for incremental tracing profile."



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

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.

n/a

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

The document requests IANA to assign an XML URI and a YANG model name.
The registries are clearly identified.
The respective registration procedures are followed correctly.


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/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

It represents a broad agreement from the subset of the working group concerned
with IOAM.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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.)

No.

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.

IOAM is largely defined in the IPPM wg and this is where the expertise resides.
There has been an early YANG Doctor review.

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.

The document contains a YANG module and must therefore receive a YANG Doctor
review.
A Yang Doctor review was performed on version 03 of the draft. The result was:
Ready with issues. A number of minor issues were identified and addressed in
subsequent revisions.

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]?

Using the online YANG Validator the tools listed below all reported No warnings or
errors: 
* ***confd:** confd-8.0   
* **pyang:** 2.5.3    
* **xym:** 0.7.0    
* **yangdump:** 21.10-12    
* **yanglint:** 2.1.111

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.
n/a
## 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.

To my knowledge all required disclosures have been filed. The authors have all
indicated that they are not aware of any further IPRs that require declaration
against this document.

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.

Yes

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.)

Two references are outdated:
* draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options -> RFC 9486
* draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh -> RFC 9452

Two references in the Normative references section are defined but not used in the
document:

* RFC 8343
* RFC 8532

Additional nits:

YANG model:

The associated description to "grouping ioam-preallocated-tracing-profile"
looks like a copy paste error:
"A grouping for incremental tracing profile."



15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

n/a

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.

n/a

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?

No.

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.

No.

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]).

The document requests IANA to assign an XML URI and a YANG model name.
The registries are clearly identified.
The respective registration procedures are followed correctly.


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/