Skip to main content

YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-29

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-02-09
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-02-09
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-02-09
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-02-09
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-02-09
29 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-02-09
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-02-09
29 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-02-09
29 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-02-09
29 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-02-09
29 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-02-09
29 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-02-09
29 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-02-08
29 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-02-08
29 John Scudder IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-02-08
29 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback and explaining the details of OSPFv3 extended LSAs.
2024-02-08
29 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-02-07
29 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-02-07
29 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Victor Kuarsingh was marked no-response
2024-02-05
29 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-02-02
29 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman.
2024-02-02
29 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-02-02
29 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-29.txt
2024-02-02
29 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2024-02-02
29 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2024-02-01
28 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-02-01
28 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for publishing another YANG model.

I do have a little sympathy to Roman's comment that having a bit more descriptive prose at …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for publishing another YANG model.

I do have a little sympathy to Roman's comment that having a bit more descriptive prose at the beginning of this document might be helpful to readers (i.e., I'm thinking in the order of one or two paragraphs).  But at the same time, I can also see that repeating (or perhaps summarising) what is already written in another RFC isn't necessarily that helpful, and having the details in the YANG module itself is arguably the most important and useful place because then the tooling can build appropriate GUI help text or user documentation.

Regards,
Rob
2024-02-01
28 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2024-02-01
28 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2024-01-31
28 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
Forwarding a comment from Orie Steele, incoming ART AD:

There do not appear to be a lot of normative statements.
2024-01-31
28 Murray Kucherawy Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy
2024-01-31
28 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-01-31
28 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-01-31
28 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
** Section 5.

  Write
  operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper
  protection can have a negative effect on …
[Ballot discuss]
** Section 5.

  Write
  operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper
  protection can have a negative effect on network operations.  There
  are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

      /ospf:ospf/extended-lsa-support
      /ospf:ospf/ospf:areas/ospf:area/extended-lsa-support
      The ability to disable OSPFv3 Extended LSA support can result in a
      denial of service.

Isn’t it more than just denial of service?  In certain environments wouldn’t the ability to modify OSPF Extended LSA configurations enable an attacker to: modify network topologies to enable select traffic to avoid inspection or treatment by security controls; route traffic in a way that it would be subject to inspect/modification by an adversary node; or gain access to otherwise segregated parts of the network.
2024-01-31
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
As an editorial note, I would have benefit from some narrative prose on the data model.
2024-01-31
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-01-31
28 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2024-01-30
28 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-01-30
28 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-28.txt
2024-01-30
28 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2024-01-30
28 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2024-01-30
27 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2024-01-30
27 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-01-30
27 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-01-29
27 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

Like id-nits, I wonder why BCP14 template is used in the main body (in addition …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

Like id-nits, I wonder why BCP14 template is used in the main body (in addition to its occurence in the YANG module itself) as there are occurence of normative language neither in the main body nor in the YANG module. Please consider removing the 2 occurence of the BCP 14 template.

Should there be a less trivial example ?
2024-01-29
27 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-01-28
27 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-01-25
27 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-02-01
2024-01-25
27 John Scudder Ballot has been issued
2024-01-25
27 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-01-25
27 John Scudder Created "Approve" ballot
2024-01-25
27 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-01-25
27 John Scudder Ballot writeup was changed
2024-01-25
27 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-01-24
27 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-01-24
27 Meral Shirazipour Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2024-01-17
27 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-01-17
27 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-ospfv3-extended-lsa
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospfv3-extended-lsa
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

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

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

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-ospfv3-extended-lsa
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospfv3-extended-lsa
Prefix: ospfv3-e-lsa
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-01-16
27 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27.txt
2024-01-16
27 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2024-01-16
27 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2024-01-15
26 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-26.txt
2024-01-15
26 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2024-01-15
26 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2024-01-12
25 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2024-01-12
25 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2024-01-11
25 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2024-01-11
25 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2024-01-11
25 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2024-01-11
25 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-01-11
25 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-01-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Christian Hopps , chopps@chopps.org, draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-01-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Christian Hopps , chopps@chopps.org, draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-01-25. 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 YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF YANG
  model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
  Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide
  extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 5340.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/



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




2024-01-11
25 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-01-11
25 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-10
25 John Scudder Last call was requested
2024-01-10
25 John Scudder Last call announcement was generated
2024-01-10
25 John Scudder Ballot approval text was generated
2024-01-10
25 John Scudder Ballot writeup was generated
2024-01-10
25 John Scudder IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-01-10
25 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-01-10
25 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-01-10
25 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-25.txt
2024-01-10
25 Yingzhen Qu New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2024-01-10
25 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2024-01-10
24 Yingzhen Qu
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals.

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

No.

    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)?

One existing implementation: https://github.com/holo-routing/holo/blob/master/holo-ospf/src/northbound/yang.rs

    ## Additional Reviews

    5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
      other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
      therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes,
      describe which reviews took place.

No.

    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.

It being a YANG document a YANG doctors review was performed.

    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]?

Checked with `yanglint` and `pyang --ietf`.

    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.

N/A.

    ## 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?
Yes.

    10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
        reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
        identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
        subsequent reviews?
None.

    11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
        ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
        this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
        correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. B/c this document defines a standard YANG model for the management of the given standard protocol features.

    12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
        intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
        [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
        disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
        relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when
        applicable.
Yes.

    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
        listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
        page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

    14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
        [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
        on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
        generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
None.

    15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
        [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

    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][9] and [BCP
        97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If
        so, list them.
No.

    18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
        submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.

    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][11]).

Standard YANG module IANA considerations.

    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.
2024-01-10
24 Yingzhen Qu
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals.

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

No.

    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)?

Not aware of any implementations.

    ## Additional Reviews

    5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
      other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
      therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes,
      describe which reviews took place.

No.

    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.

It being a YANG document a YANG doctors review was performed.

    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]?

Checked with `yanglint` and `pyang --ietf`.

    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.

N/A.

    ## 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?
Yes.

    10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
        reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
        identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
        subsequent reviews?
None.

    11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
        ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
        this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
        correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. B/c this document defines a standard YANG model for the management of the given standard protocol features.

    12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
        intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
        [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
        disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
        relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when
        applicable.
Yes.

    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
        listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
        page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

    14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
        [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
        on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
        generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
None.

    15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
        [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

    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][9] and [BCP
        97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If
        so, list them.
No.

    18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
        submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.

    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][11]).

Standard YANG module IANA considerations.

    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.
2024-01-10
24 John Scudder See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/EaIPFlUBH2pfLvZ0CaHKvsLhNCQ/
2024-01-10
24 (System) Changed action holders to Acee Lindem, Sharmila Palani, Yingzhen Qu (IESG state changed)
2024-01-10
24 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-01-10
24 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-01-10
24 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2023-11-29
24 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-24.txt
2023-11-29
24 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-11-29
24 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals.

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

No.

    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)?

N/A.

    ## Additional Reviews

    5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
      other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
      therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes,
      describe which reviews took place.

No.

    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.

It being a YANG document a YANG doctors review was performed.

    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]?

Checked with `yanglint` and `pyang --ietf`.

    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.

N/A.

    ## 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?
Yes.

    10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
        reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
        identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
        subsequent reviews?
None.

    11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
        ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
        this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
        correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. B/c this document defines a standard YANG model for the management of the given standard protocol features.

    12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
        intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
        [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
        disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
        relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when
        applicable.
Yes.

    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
        listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
        page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

    14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
        [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
        on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
        generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No.

    15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
        [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

    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][9] and [BCP
        97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If
        so, list them.
No.

    18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
        submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.

    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][11]).

Standard YANG module IANA considerations.

    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.
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

Strong concurrence of a few individuals.

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

No.

    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)?

N/A.

    ## Additional Reviews

    5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
      other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
      therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes,
      describe which reviews took place.

No.

    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.

It being a YANG document a YANG doctors review was performed.

    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]?

Checked with `yanglint` and `pyang --ietf`.

    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.

N/A.

    ## 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?
Yes.

    10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
        reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
        identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
        subsequent reviews?
None.

    11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
        ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
        this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
        correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. B/c this document defines a standard YANG model for the management of the given standard protocol features.

    12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
        intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
        [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
        disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
        relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when
        applicable.
Yes.

    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
        listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
        page is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

    14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
        [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
        on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
        generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No.

    15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
        [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

    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][9] and [BCP
        97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If
        so, list them.
No.

    18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
        submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.

    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][11]).

Standard YANG module IANA considerations.

    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.
2023-10-09
23 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2023-08-21
23 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-23.txt
2023-08-21
23 (System) New version approved
2023-08-21
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Sharmila Palani , Yingzhen Qu
2023-08-21
23 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-08-18
22 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-08-13
22 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-22.txt
2023-08-13
22 (System) New version approved
2023-08-13
22 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Sharmila Palani , Yingzhen Qu
2023-08-13
22 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-07-23
21 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-21.txt
2023-07-23
21 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-07-23
21 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-07-19
20 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard.
2023-06-29
20 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-20.txt
2023-06-29
20 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-06-29
20 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-06-28
19 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-19.txt
2023-06-28
19 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-06-28
19 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-06-28
18 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-18.txt
2023-06-28
18 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-06-28
18 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-06-27
17 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-17.txt
2023-06-27
17 Yingzhen Qu New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2023-06-27
17 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2023-06-26
16 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-16.txt
2023-06-26
16 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-06-26
16 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-06-26
15 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-15.txt
2023-06-26
15 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-06-26
15 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-06-16
14 Haomian Zheng Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': duplicate with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/reviewrequest/17651/
2023-06-16
14 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Victoria Pritchard
2023-06-15
14 Mahesh Jethanandani Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Mahesh Jethanandani. Sent review to list.
2023-06-15
14 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2023-06-15
14 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Mahesh Jethanandani
2023-06-14
14 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2023-06-14
14 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2023-06-09
14 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-14.txt
2023-06-09
14 (System) New version approved
2023-06-09
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Sharmila Palani , Yingzhen Qu
2023-06-09
14 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2023-02-22
13 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-13.txt
2023-02-22
13 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2023-02-22
13 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2022-08-30
12 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-12.txt
2022-08-30
12 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2022-08-30
12 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2022-08-30
11 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-11.txt
2022-08-30
11 Acee Lindem New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2022-08-30
11 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2022-03-06
10 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt
2022-03-06
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2022-03-06
10 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2021-09-27
09 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-09.txt
2021-09-27
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2021-09-27
09 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2021-03-28
08 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-08.txt
2021-03-28
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2021-03-28
08 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2021-02-17
07 Christian Hopps Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-02-17
07 Christian Hopps Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2020-10-02
07 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-07.txt
2020-10-02
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2020-10-02
07 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2020-10-01
06 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-06.txt
2020-10-01
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2020-10-01
06 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2020-09-30
05 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-05.txt
2020-09-30
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2020-09-30
05 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2020-08-12
04 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-04.txt
2020-08-12
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2020-08-12
04 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2020-08-07
03 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-03.txt
2020-08-07
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2020-08-07
03 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
02 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-02.txt
2020-07-13
02 (System) New version approved
2020-07-13
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Sharmila Palani , Yingzhen Qu
2020-07-13
02 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2020-04-24
01 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt
2020-04-24
01 (System) New version approved
2020-04-24
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu , Sharmila Palani
2020-04-24
01 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2020-04-24
00 (System) Document has expired
2019-10-24
00 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
2019-10-24
00 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Christian Hopps
2019-10-22
00 Yingzhen Qu This document now replaces draft-acee-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang instead of None
2019-10-22
00 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-00.txt
2019-10-22
00 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu)
2019-10-22
00 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision