Final Shepherd Write Up for draft ietf ivy-network-inventory-topology 08
1 Summary
Document Title: Network Inventory Topology
Working Group: IVY
Document Shepherd: Olga Havel
Responsible Area Director: OPS Area Director (Mahesh Jethanandani)
This document defines a YANG data model for representing network inventory
topology, including physical nodes, termination points links, and provides
lightweight media classification and inventory mapping. It extends the base
topology model in a focused and non controversial way to support physical
inventory specific relationships.
2 Review Summary
I thoroughly reviewed version 08 of the draft and provided a set of minor
editorial and clarifying comments. The authors addressed these comments in
version 09. I reviewed the corresponding changes in version 09 and confirmed
that the comments have been satisfactorily resolved.
The document is mature, clear, technically coherent, and aligns well with the
IVY WG’s charter. The YANG module validates cleanly and follow IETF YANG
guidelines, which is a strong indicator of readiness.
The draft clearly explains the motivation, use cases, and relationship to other
topology and inventory models. The module augments RFC 8345 in a consistent
manner and introduces inventory mapping attributes and breakout-channel
capabilities that appear well designed and aligned with operational needs.
The Working Group Last Call ran for a sufficiently long period and completed
without objections. While the volume of written feedback during WGLC was
modest, this reflects that substantial technical discussion had already taken
place during IVY weekly calls and WG sessions. Key participants provided
positive technical feedback, and no concerns were raised regarding the model’s
structure or scope.
The shepherd review comments on version 08 concerned clarification of the
relationship to RFC 8345, topology-to-inventory navigation, link-type semantics
and extensibility, discovery versus configuration behavior, and security
considerations. These comments did not identify technical blockers or require
changes to the overall model architecture. They have been addressed in version
09.
The draft is ready for IESG evaluation. No technical blockers identified.
3 Shepherd Writeup
Document History
1. WG Consensus Strength
There is strong WG consensus behind this document and no decisions required
rough consensus. The technical feedback from key participants is positive. All
decisions were straightforward, and consensus was smooth.
2. Controversy / Rough Consensus
The extension to the base model and the model scope and design were non
controversial and align with the WG’s architectural direction. There was no
controversy on any technical or architectural points.
3. Appeals or Extreme Discontent
No technical objections were raised during WGLC or earlier discussions, no one
has threatened an appeal or expressed extreme discontent.
4. Existing Implementations and Plans
The IETF125 hackathon ‘Knowledge Graph based on SIMAP Connected with IVY’
implemented the YANG modules and demonstrated that the relation between
ietf-network and ietf-network-topology and inventory can be navigated using
ietf-network-inventory-topology. Some operators and system developers have
expressed interest in using the model, though no formal implementations have
been reported.
Additional Reviews
5. Cross-WG or External Reviews
The document closely interacts with the network topology models defined in RFC
8345, the inventory model defined in draft ietf ivy network inventory and
subset of SIMAP requirements. Relevant experts in those areas participated in
WG discussions and reviewed the document. No additional external reviews were
required.
6. Formal Expert Review Criteria
A YANG Doctor review and an OPSDIR review were performed. Both were positive
and identified no fundamental technical issues. All comments from these reviews
have been addressed.
The subsequent document shepherd comments on version 08 have also been
addressed in version 09.
No MIB, media type, or URI type reviews are required.
7. YANG Module Validation and NMDA Compliance
The final YANG module was checked with:
• pyang --lint
• yanglint
No errors or warnings remain. The module complies with the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC 8342.
8. Other Formal Language Checks
Beyond YANG, the document does not contain other formal languages such as XML
schemas, BNF, MIBs, or CDDL that require separate validation. All examples are
syntactically correct.
Document Shepherd Checks
9. Shepherd’s Overall Opinion
Based on the shepherd’s review, the document is needed, clearly written,
complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible
Area Director. The minor editorial and clarifying comments raised during the
shepherd review of version 08 have been addressed in version 09. No technical
blockers remain.
10. Common Area Issues
The document is in the OPS area (YANG, network management). Common OPS
issues—NMDA compliance, YANG validation, and IANA YANG registry
requirements—have been checked and addressed.
11. Requested RFC Publication Type
The requested publication type is Proposed Standard on the IETF stream. This is
appropriate because the document defines a normative YANG data model intended
for interoperable implementations. Datatracker state attributes correctly
reflect this intent.
12. IPR Disclosure Effort
Reasonable efforts have been made to remind all authors of the IPR disclosure
obligations described in BCP 79. All authors have confirmed they are unaware of
any IPR related to this document. No IPR disclosures have been filed.
13. Authors, Editors and Contributors
All authors, editors, and contributors have shown their willingness to be
listed as such. The number of authors on the front page is within the usual
limit (≤5), so no special justification is required.
14. Remaining I-D Nits
The shepherd has run idnits and reviewed the content against authors.ietf.org
guidelines. 2 idnits errors have been identified in v09 and fixed in v10. 2
idnitt warnings were discussed with authors and can be ignored.
15. Normative vs Informative References
The shepherd has checked the references. No informative references need to be
normative or vice versa. The current categorization is appropriate. The
shepherd notes that the normative reference to the inventory base model draft
is appropriate because both documents are progressing together in the WG
16. Normative References Availability
All normative references are freely available (RFCs or IETF Internet Drafts).
The community has had sufficient access to review them.
17. Normative Downward References
There are no normative downward references that are not already listed in the
DOWNREF registry. No special handling is required.
18. Normative References Not Yet Ready
Some normative references are Internet Drafts that may become RFCs before
publication. The plan is for the authors to update these references to their
final RFC numbers in the next revision or during RFC Editor processing
(AUTH48). The inventory base model draft is expected to be published before or
alongside this document.
19. Changes to Existing RFCs
Publication of this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
The Datatracker metadata correctly reflects that it does not update or obsolete
other RFCs, and no such RFCs are listed on the title page.
20. IANA Consideration Consistency
The shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section and confirmed it is
consistent with the body of the document. The document requests registration of
the YANG module ietf-network-inventory-topology in the IANA YANG Module Names
registry. All referenced registries are clearly identified, and no new
registries are created.
21. New IANA Registries and Designated Experts
The document does not create any new IANA registries and therefore does not
require Designated Expert review or instructions.