As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document specifies a data model for client and server implementations of
the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP). The TWAMP data model is
described through Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams and formally
specified using YANG.
The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] is used to measure
network performance parameters such as latency, bandwidth, and packet loss by
sending probe packets and measuring their experience in the network. To
date, TWAMP implementations do not come with a standard management framework
and, as such, configuration depends on proprietary mechanisms developed by
the corresponding TWAMP vendor. This document addresses this gap by formally
specifying the TWAMP data model using YANG.
Working Group Summary
This document was presented and discussed in IETF96, IETF97, IETF98 and
IETF99. There has also been discussion on the email list. There were
questions raised as to the inclusion of TWAMP Light in this document. The
consensus was that TWAMP Light is not adequately specified as a protocol.
This is the precursor to creating a YANG model.
Document Quality
The document was reviewed and comments were provided in both the IETF
meetings and on the IPPM WG mailing list. A YANG doctors review was requested
for the YANG module in the document and it was provided by Jan Lindblad.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
AT&T has an implementation. Viavi was working on an implementation for
testing Ethernet.
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the
document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or
other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
A YANG doctors review was requested for the YANG module in the document and
it was provided by Jan Lindblad. A number of the suggestions were
implemented.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd is Nalini Elkins. The Responsible Area Director is
Spencer Dawkins.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.
The document shepherd has followed the progression of the document through
the WG and has reviewed the email chains as well as the review of the Yang
doctor. As this time, it appears the document has addressed comments other
than those regarding the inclusion of TWAMP Light, because there will be a
separate document by the commentor to address TWAMP Light. As a document
shepherd I believe the document is ready for publication.
There were quite a few comments from the Yang doctors. I have verified that
all comments were addressed. These include comments regarding the YANG
model, stream characteristics, and operator commands.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.
This document is concerned with TWAMP and YANG. Both areas have been
addressed in detail.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
I have no concerns
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes, each author has so confirmed.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Since this is a YANG model for RFC 5357, the IPR disclosed for TWAMP is
applicable: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5357&submit=rfc
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There appears to be rough consensus from that portion of the WG which is
involved with TWAMP and YANG. Not all WG members work in that area so they
are silent.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Line 651 has weird spacing: '...riority uin...'
== Line 684 has weird spacing: '...m-index uin...'
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
A YANG doctor review has been done.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
See idnits
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. The
format is correct.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
There are no new IANA registries
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
YANG validation Passed:
From the Datatracker page, if you click on the Yin/YANG symbol, you get:
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-04.txt:
xym 0.4:
Extracting 'ietf-twamp@2017-02-22.yang'
ietf-twamp@2017-02-22.yang:
pyang 1.7.3: pyang --verbose --ietf -p {libs} {model}:
No validation errors
yanglint 0.13.69: yanglint --verbose -p {rfclib} -p {draftlib} -p {tmplib}
{model} -i: No validation errors