A YANG Data Model for LMAP Measurement Agents
draft-ietf-lmap-yang-12

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the feedback! Still some comments:

- Maybe make RFC7594 a normative reference.

- It could be good to give some further guidance on how connectivity is established. Something like, in most cases the controller will connect the MA and the controller should make sure that it reconnects frequently based on the timeout configuration of the MA. If the MA e.g. is behind a NAT, the MA must establish the initial connection and try to reconnect when the timeout expires. Btw. is it enough to open a transport connection or do you mean by checking connectivity that there also should be some data transmitted to ensure that the controller is no only reachable but also active?

- I still think there might be further information needed on bootstrapping. This draft only says:
"Pre-Configuration Information: This is not modeled explicitly since bootstrapping information is outside the scope of this data model."

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the feedback! Still some comments:

- Maybe make RFC7594 a normative reference.

- It could be good to give some further guidance on how connectivity is established. Something like, in most cases the controller will connect the MA and the controller should make sure that it reconnects frequently based on the timeout configuration of the MA. If the MA e.g. is behind a NAT, the MA must establish the initial connection and try to reconnect when the timeout expires. Btw. is it enough to open a transport connection or do you mean by checking connectivity that there also should be some data transmitted to ensure that the controller is no only reachable but also active?

- I still think there might be futher information needed on bootstrapping. This draft only says:
"Pre-Configuration Information: This is not modeled explicitly since bootstrapping information is outside the scope of this data model."

[Ballot comment]
- No objection to the publication, but the following phrasing puzzles me.

  It aims to be consistent with the
  LMAP Information Model [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model].

Actually, the data model is based on information model, right?

From the charter:
5. The Report protocol and the associated data model: The definition of
how the Report is delivered from a MA to a Collector; this includes a
Data Model consistent with the Information Model plus a transport
protocol (to be selected, perhaps REST-style HTTP(s) or IPFIX).

This is reason why the information model is standard track in the charter.
Therefore the information model must be a normative reference, right?

- one question about the typedefs naming.
It would nice to be able to reuse YANG constructs, typedefs being of them
We created http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/yang-search.php with that goal in mind.
=> insert "identifier"
=> select typedef
Some of the typedefs are so generically named in LMAP YANG module: identifier, tag, cycle-number, wildcard, etc.
Do you expect YANG designers to reuse them outside of LMAP? Some of them, I guess so
Should the other ones be renamed with LMAP in mind. Ex: lmap-identifier?
In other words, are all the ietf-lmap-common.yang typedef common?


Editorial:
- figure 1
OLD: ietf-lmap-comman.yang
NEW: ietf-lmap-common.yang

[Ballot comment]
The security considerations looks good, but can't YANG also be accessed via RESTCONF?  What considerations are needed for that?  I thunk we went through this for I2RS, do considerations for RESTCONF apply to this YANG module?

[Ballot discuss]
This draft does not specify a bootstrapping process (see RFC 7594 5.1.  Bootstrapping Process) and says:
"Pre-Configuration Information: This is not modeled explicitly since bootstrapping information is outside the scope of this data model."
So when and where and how will this be specified?

[Ballot comment]
Also it is not clear when and how to perform configuration actions. To be a fully function protocol more guidance is needed. Not sure if that is even the intention of this document but I don't see any other documents that serves this purpose in the lmap queue. (And the milesstones are not up to date and don't indicate with document maps to which milestone.)

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ns subspace of the IETF XML Registry located at:

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

three, new registrations will be made as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-lmap-common
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-common
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-lmap-control
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-control
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-lmap-report
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-report
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

three module names will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-lmap-common
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-common
Prefix: lmap
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-lmap-control
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-control
Prefix: lmapc
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-lmap-report
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lmap-report
Prefix: lmapr
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: lmap-chairs@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu , lmap@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for LMAP Measurement Agents) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Large-Scale Measurement of
Broadband Performance WG (lmap) to consider the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for LMAP Measurement Agents'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-08. 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


  This document defines a data model for Large-Scale Measurement
  Platforms (LMAP).  The data model is defined using the YANG data
  modeling language.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-yang/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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?

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 defines a data model for Large-Scale Measurement
  Platforms (LMAP).  The data model is defined using the YANG data
  modeling language.

Working Group Summary

  The Working Group debated what Data Modeling Language should be used for LMAP and the consensus was to use YANG.

Document Quality

  There is one active implementation of the DM which was presented, discussed and is available openly. There is information about at least one more implementation in progress. A YANG Doctor review was performed and comments were incorporated. During the development of the document the WG communicated and received inputs from other SDOs (as the Broadband Forum and IEEE 802) as well as from the EC projects.

Personnel

  Dan Romascanu is the Document Shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 reviewed the document and I believe that it is ready.

(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.

YANG Doctor review was already performed and comments were incorporated.

(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.

No.

(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? 

There has been active and sufficient participation and discussion.

(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.

There are a small number of nits that can be easily fix at the end of the editorial process.

(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 was already performed and comments were incorporated.

(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 5226).

The registration requests in the IANA section are from existing registries.


(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.

None.

(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 was performed - modules are clean.