Skip to main content

A YANG Data Model for IP Traffic Flow Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-06
05 (System) Changed action holders to Christian Hopps, Roman Danyliw, Don Fedyk (IESG state changed)
2022-05-06
05 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2022-05-06
05 Roman Danyliw AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/MGYr8YxuTJMeoEoSMoAZX008AWE/
2022-03-24
05 Tero Kivinen
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard.

(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 describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Roman Danyliw.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(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.


  None.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No 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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.
2022-03-23
05 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw
2021-11-18
05 Tero Kivinen
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard.

(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 describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(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.


  None.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No 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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.
2021-11-18
05 Tero Kivinen Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2021-11-18
05 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-11-18
05 Tero Kivinen IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-11-18
05 Tero Kivinen IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-11-18
05 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-05.txt
2021-11-18
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2021-11-18
05 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-16
04 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-04.txt
2021-11-16
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Don Fedyk)
2021-11-16
04 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-12
03 Tero Kivinen
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 …
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard.

(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 describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(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.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(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.


  None.

(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.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(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?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(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.

  No.

(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 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No 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, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.
2021-11-11
03 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-03.txt
2021-11-11
03 (System) New version approved
2021-11-11
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
2021-11-11
03 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-11-08
02 Tero Kivinen Notification list changed to kivinen@iki.fi because the document shepherd was set
2021-11-08
02 Tero Kivinen Document shepherd changed to Tero Kivinen
2021-11-05
02 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-11-05
02 Tero Kivinen Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-11-05
02 Tero Kivinen Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-10-25
02 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-02.txt
2021-10-25
02 (System) New version approved
2021-10-25
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
2021-10-25
02 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-10-06
01 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2021-10-06
01 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2021-10-06
01 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2021-10-04
01 Yoav Nir Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2021-10-04
01 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-01.txt
2021-10-04
01 (System) New version approved
2021-10-04
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
2021-10-04
01 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision
2021-10-04
00 Mehmet Ersue Closed request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS with state 'Withdrawn'
2021-10-04
00 Mehmet Ersue Assignment of request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS to Jürgen Schönwälder was withdrawn
2021-09-09
00 (System) Document has expired
2021-08-17
00 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2021-08-17
00 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2021-08-16
00 Tero Kivinen Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2021-08-16
00 Tero Kivinen IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-07-26
00 Tero Kivinen Added to session: IETF-111: ipsecme  Mon-1430
2021-03-08
00 Tero Kivinen This document now replaces draft-fedyk-ipsecme-yang-iptfs instead of None
2021-03-08
00 Don Fedyk New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-00.txt
2021-03-08
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-03-08
00 Don Fedyk Set submitter to "Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org
2021-03-08
00 Don Fedyk Uploaded new revision