Skip to main content

Data Model for Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-13
08 Pascal Thubert
# Document Shepherd Writeup


Technical Summary:


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules …
# Document Shepherd Writeup


Technical Summary:


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824


Working Group Summary:

This document was discussed at a number of LPWAN interim meetings. There was never any form of opposition against it. The way to allow extensions in particular with the upcoming "compound ack" spec was studied.


Personnel:
Document Shepherd:  Pascal Thubert
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


Template:



*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*



## 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's more of the former. LPWAN has a core of 6-8 people that are very active and implement open source code as well as proprietary stacks for LoRA and Sigfox.

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

  There was a global approval; One slight issue was heavily discussed: the size of a timer in seconds, 32 vs. 64 bits. The RFC does not constrain the durection of the timer. On paper, all the proposed representations (string and cbor) do not need to know so it should not matter. But the implementer may depend on the YANG model to type his variables. The proposal was made to replace the 64 bits by a mantissa (2 bytes) and a 1 byte exponent of 2. A default value for the exponent (13, with the base unit in microseconds) can be omitted in the air, allowing 2 octets to indicate from 1s to 18H.

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 at least 2 known implementations, by Acklio and in openSCHC.


### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

  No such thing

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 was reviewed by a YANG doctor (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2021-04-13/). It was edited by a lead SCHC author and reviewed by the SCHC editor.

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]?

  Yes, the document was validated through IETF YANG tools including pyang


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.

  There's only YANG

### 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?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

    I could not find one relevant here

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?


Proposed Standard, which makes sense for such content. Datatracker state attributes

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

    Yes and there' s no IPR against this document.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

    All good on that front

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

    All good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    All good

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

    none

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

    none

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

    none

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][12]).

No IANA, this speification is purely for the YANG model, no new functionality or format.

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.

    none

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html



2022-05-13
08 Pascal Thubert
# Document Shepherd Writeup


Technical Summary:


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules …
# Document Shepherd Writeup


Technical Summary:


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824


Working Group Summary:

This document was discussed at a number of LPWAN interim meetings. There was never any form of opposition against it. The way to allow extensions in particular with the upcoming "compound ack" spec was studied.


Personnel:
Document Shepherd:  Pascal Thubert
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


Template:



*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*



## 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's more of the former. LPWAN has a core of 6-8 people that are very active and implement open source code as well as proprietary stacks for LoRA and Sigfox.

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

  Here was a global approval; One slight issue was heavily discussed: the size of a timer in seconds, 32 vs. 64 bits. The RFC does not constrain the durection of the timer. On paper, all the proposed representations (string and cbor) do not need to know so it should not matter. But the implementer may depend on the YANG model to type his variables. The proposal was made to replace the 64 bits by a mantissa (2 bytes) and a 1 byte exponent of 2. A default value for the exponent (13, with the base unit in microseconds) can be omitted in the air, allowing 2 octets to indicate from 1s to 18H.

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 at least 2 known implementations, by Acklio and in openSCHC.


### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

  No such thing

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 was reviewed by a YANG doctor (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2021-04-13/). It was edited by a lead SCHC author and reviewed by the SCHC editor.

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]?

  Yes, the document was validated through IETF YANG tools including pyang


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.

  There's only YANG

### 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?

  Certainly.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

    I could not find one relevant here

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?


Proposed Standard, which makes sense for such content. Datatracker state attributes

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

    Yes and there' s no IPR against this document.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

    All good on that front

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

    All good now.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    All good

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

    none

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

    none

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

    none

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][12]).

No IANA, this speification is purely for the YANG model, no new functionality or format.

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.

    none

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html



2022-05-13
08 Pascal Thubert
# Document Shepherd Writeup
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. …
# Document Shepherd Writeup
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, which makes sense for such content

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824


Working Group Summary:

This document was discussed at a number of LPWAN interim meetings. There was never any form of opposition against it. The way to allow extensions in particular with the upcoming "compound ack" spec was studied.

Document Quality:

The document  was reviewed by YANG doctor (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2021-04-13/). It was edited by a lead SCHC author and reviewed by the SCHC editor.

Personnel:
Document Shepherd:  Pascal Thubert
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?

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

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.)

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. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

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.

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]?

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.

### 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]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

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.

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][12]).

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

2022-05-06
08 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-08.txt
2022-05-06
08 (System) New version approved
2022-05-06
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2022-05-06
08 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2022-03-07
07 Pascal Thubert
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, which makes sense for such content

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.


  This document describes a YANG data model for the SCHC (Static  Context Header Compression) compression and fragmentation rules for RFC 8724 and RFC 8824


Working Group Summary:

This document was discussed at a number of LPWAN interim meetings. There was never any form of opposition against it. The way to allow extensions in particular with the upcoming "compound ack" spec was studied.

Document Quality:

The document  was reviewed by YANG doctor (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04-yangdoctors-early-moberg-2021-04-13/). It was edited by a lead SCHC author and reviewed by the SCHC editor.

Personnel:
Document Shepherd:  Pascal Thubert
Responsible Area Director: Eric Vyncke


(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.

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

(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.

(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.

(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?

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

(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?

(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.)

(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.

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

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

(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?

(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

(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.

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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?

2022-03-07
07 Pascal Thubert Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-03-07
07 Pascal Thubert Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-03-07
07 Pascal Thubert Notification list changed to pascal.thubert@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-03-07
07 Pascal Thubert Document shepherd changed to Pascal Thubert
2022-02-28
07 Pascal Thubert IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-02-28
07 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-07.txt
2022-02-28
07 (System) New version approved
2022-02-28
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2022-02-28
07 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2021-11-24
06 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-06.txt
2021-11-24
06 (System) New version approved
2021-11-24
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-24
06 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2021-09-09
05 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-05.txt
2021-09-09
05 (System) New version approved
2021-09-09
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2021-09-09
05 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2021-08-06
04 (System) Document has expired
2021-04-13
04 Carl Moberg Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Carl Moberg. Sent review to list.
2021-02-15
04 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Carl Moberg
2021-02-15
04 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Carl Moberg
2021-02-15
04 Pascal Thubert Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2021-02-02
04 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-04.txt
2021-02-02
04 (System) New version approved
2021-02-02
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2021-02-02
04 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2021-01-11
03 (System) Document has expired
2020-07-10
03 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-03.txt
2020-07-10
03 (System) New version approved
2020-07-10
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2020-07-10
03 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2020-05-19
02 Éric Vyncke Shepherding AD changed to Éric Vyncke
2020-02-28
02 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-02.txt
2020-02-28
02 (System) New version approved
2020-02-28
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2020-02-28
02 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2020-02-28
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
2020-02-28
02 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2020-01-23
01 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-01.txt
2020-01-23
01 (System) New version approved
2020-01-23
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>, Ana Minaburo <ana@ackl.io>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2020-01-23
01 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision
2019-10-25
00 (System) Document has expired
2019-07-10
00 Suresh Krishnan Shepherding AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2019-04-23
00 Pascal Thubert This document now replaces draft-toutain-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model instead of None
2019-04-23
00 Laurent Toutain New version available: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-yang-data-model-00.txt
2019-04-23
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-04-21
00 Laurent Toutain Set submitter to "Laurent Toutain <Laurent.Toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lpwan-chairs@ietf.org
2019-04-21
00 Laurent Toutain Uploaded new revision