Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-22
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-08-26
|
22 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Tina Tsou was marked no-response |
2019-08-15
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-08-12
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-07-19
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2019-06-28
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2019-05-27
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-05-23
|
22 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2019-05-22
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2019-05-22
|
22 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-05-22
|
22 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-05-22
|
22 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-05-22
|
22 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-05-22
|
22 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-05-22
|
22 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-22
|
22 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-05-22
|
22 | Ignas Bagdonas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-05-21
|
22 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS. |
2019-05-21
|
22 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-05-21
|
22 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-05-21
|
22 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-05-21
|
22 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-22.txt |
2019-05-21
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-21
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-05-21
|
22 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-16
|
21 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-05-16
|
21 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-21.txt |
2019-05-15
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-15
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-05-15
|
21 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small number of comments and some nits. == COMMENTS … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small number of comments and some nits. == COMMENTS == - section 4, "MUST be supported" but by which party ? - section 7, MUST all components (except 'error-severity') be part of the rpc-error ? If so, then make it clear - section 8, see the subscriber as the ennemy, but, can also the exporter be a threat? == NITS == - it would be clearer to group all authors by affiliation - abstract providing references to subscribed notifications and YANG-push documents would be a plus - section 3, expand RPC - section 3, probably because I am not a native English speaker, but I cannot really parse "A solution MUST reply" esp the word "solution" |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] An easy to fix issue. Section 8. I agree with the brevity of this section as the more detailed considerations can be found … [Ballot discuss] An easy to fix issue. Section 8. I agree with the brevity of this section as the more detailed considerations can be found in [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] has a similar statement about buggy subscribers, but also makes a SHOULD statement about operators monitoring for odd behavior. This text doesn’t include this monitoring recommendation but does explicitly discuss terminating sessions. Could the text in these two sections please be reconciled. Perhaps with a reference such as: “This document does not introduce additional Security Considerations for dynamic subscriptions beyond those discussed in [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. In particular for NETCONF subscribers … ” |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 6 Notification messages transported over the NETCONF protocol MUST be encoded in a message as defined within [RFC5277], … [Ballot comment] Section 6 Notification messages transported over the NETCONF protocol MUST be encoded in a message as defined within [RFC5277], Section 4. And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the "eventTime" populated with the event occurrence time. nit: I think the last sentence is actually a sentence fragment. Section 7 This "Either it will correspond to [...] Or this 'error-tag' will correspond to [...]" seems to preclude future extensions; do we want to add some weakening language like "for the mechanisms specified in this document"? The specific identity to use depends on the RPC for which the error occurred. Each error identity will be inserted as the "error-app-tag" following the form :. An example of such as valid encoding would be "ietf-subscribed-notifications:no-such- subscription". Viable errors for different RPCs are as follows: RPC use base identity ---------------------- ---------------------------- establish-subscription establish-subscription-error modify-subscription modify-subscription-error delete-subscription delete-subscription-error kill-subscription delete-subscription-error resync-subscription resync-subscription-error This is probably just my lack of familiarity with the protocol, but the text doesn't do much to indicate how the "base identity" concept in the table corresponds to the ":" syntax or the specific example given. I think that this just means that the must be of the base type or derived from it, so maybe "derive from" or "have" instead of "use" in the table heading would be more clear. The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant with information that is already placed within the "error-app-tag". I'm not sure where this "error-reason" leaf is defined -- I don't see it in any of subscribed-notifications, yang-push, or RFC 6241. Section 8 The publisher MAY also suspend or terminate a subset of the active subscriptions on that NETCONF session. I'd suggest saying/repeating why the publisher might do this, i.e., "MAY also suspend or terminate [...], in order to reclaim resources and preserve normal operation for the other subscriptions." Appendix A.2 I'd suggest adding a note that the "id" values of 22, 23, and 39 are just examples, and that actual values may not be small integers (akin to my comment on the RESTCONF document). |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-05-15
|
20 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-05-14
|
20 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-05-14
|
20 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-05-14
|
20 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-05-13
|
20 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Please consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a … [Ballot comment] Please consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a comment that this is an internal value that depends on the network configuration (in order to avoid that people just randomly copy this example value and suddenly always use 10)! |
2019-05-13
|
20 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-13
|
20 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Please also consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add … [Ballot comment] Please also consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a comment that this is an internal value that depends on the network configuration (in order to avoid that people just randomly copy this example value and suddenly always use 10)! |
2019-05-13
|
20 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-13
|
20 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-10
|
20 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-05-08
|
20 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20.txt |
2019-05-08
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-08
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-05-08
|
20 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-29
|
19 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. |
2019-04-29
|
19 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-19.txt |
2019-04-29
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-29
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-04-29
|
19 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-29
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-04-29
|
18 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-18.txt |
2019-04-29
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-29
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-04-29
|
18 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-19
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-04-19
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-04-19
|
17 | Bruno Decraene | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Bruno Decraene was rejected |
2019-04-19
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2019-04-19
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2019-04-18
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2019-04-17
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-05-16 |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | Ballot has been issued |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-04-16
|
17 | Ignas Bagdonas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-04-12
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-04-11
|
17 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-04-11
|
17 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-04-03
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2019-04-03
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2019-04-03
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson |
2019-04-03
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson |
2019-04-02
|
17 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list. |
2019-03-28
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-03-28
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-03-28
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: David Mandelberg. |
2019-03-25
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dave Sinicrope |
2019-03-25
|
17 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dave Sinicrope |
2019-03-24
|
17 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
2019-03-24
|
17 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, Kent … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, Kent Watsen , netconf-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf) to consider the following document: - 'Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF' 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 2019-04-12. 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 provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push. RFC Editor note: please replace the four references to pre-RFC normative drafts with the actual assigned RFC numbers. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-03-22
|
17 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | 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 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? [SHEPHERD] This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document. This is the proper designation for this RFC by WG consensus. (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. [SHEPHERD] From the Abstract: This document provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push. [SHEPHERD] From the Introduction: This document provides a binding for events streamed over the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] for dynamic subscriptions as defined in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. In addition, as [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] is itself built upon [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], this document enables a NETCONF client to request via a dynamic subscription and receive updates from a YANG datastore located on a NETCONF server. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [SHEPHERD] Nothing in the process is worth noting. No decisions were particularly rough. There was a debate as to if this RFC should define support for *configured* subscriptions, in additional to dynamic subscriptions, which it does support, but the WG consensus was to add support for configured subscriptions at a later time. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? [SHEPHERD] Unknown if there are any implementations of this draft as yet. This document just went through a post-LC YANG Doctor review (all issues raised were addressed): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-01-09/ Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? [SHEPHERD] The Document Shepherd is Kent Watsen, with Qin Wu's assistance. The Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas. (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. [SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed emails on the list, and tested against `idnits`, and validated the YANG modules using both `pyang` and `yanglint`. The shepherd-assistant found a number of issues that have been resolved in the current version. Both the shepherd and the assistant are comfortable with forwarding the document to the IESG at this time. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [SHEPHERD] The Shepherd has no 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. [SHEPHERD] No review from a particular or from broader perspective is required. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no specific concerns or issues that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of. (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. SHEPHERD] Each author has just 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. Here is the thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DwVn_uY_E5UGwyCWG8Kk1A-BFTI Note: Alberto sent his response on on Feb 19, though it does not show up in the mail archive... (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. [SHEPHERD] No IPR disclosure been filed that references this document. (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? [SHEPHERD] Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing this work. (10) 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.) [SHEPHERD] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. (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. [SHEPHERD] - just a bunch of "weird spacing" false-positive warnings (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. [SHEPHERD] The document was reviewed by the YANG doctor assigned to it. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? [SHEPHERD] Yes, 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? [SHEPHERD] The only quazi-questionable normative references are to draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-netconf-yang-push, which are being submitted to the IESG at the same time as this draft. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no downward normative references. (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. [SHEPHERD] The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). [SHEPHERD] This document does not (and rightly so) contain an IANA Considerations section. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no new IANA registries that require Expert review for future allocations. (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. [SHEPHERD] this document does not define a YANG module, so no YANG module verification was performed. |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | Responsible AD changed to Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-02-26
|
17 | Kent Watsen | 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 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? [SHEPHERD] This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document. This is the proper designation for this RFC by WG consensus. (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. [SHEPHERD] From the Abstract: This document provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push. [SHEPHERD] From the Introduction: This document provides a binding for events streamed over the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] for dynamic subscriptions as defined in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. In addition, as [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] is itself built upon [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], this document enables a NETCONF client to request via a dynamic subscription and receive updates from a YANG datastore located on a NETCONF server. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [SHEPHERD] Nothing in the process is worth noting. No decisions were particularly rough. There was a debate as to if this RFC should define support for *configured* subscriptions, in additional to dynamic subscriptions, which it does support, but the WG consensus was to add support for configured subscriptions at a later time. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? [SHEPHERD] Unknown if there are any implementations of this draft as yet. This document just went through a post-LC YANG Doctor review (all issues raised were addressed): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-01-09/ Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? [SHEPHERD] The Document Shepherd is Kent Watsen, with Qin Wu's assistance. The Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas. (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. [SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed emails on the list, and tested against `idnits`, and validated the YANG modules using both `pyang` and `yanglint`. The shepherd-assistant found a number of issues that have been resolved in the current version. Both the shepherd and the assistant are comfortable with forwarding the document to the IESG at this time. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [SHEPHERD] The Shepherd has no 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. [SHEPHERD] No review from a particular or from broader perspective is required. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no specific concerns or issues that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of. (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. SHEPHERD] Each author has just 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. Here is the thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DwVn_uY_E5UGwyCWG8Kk1A-BFTI Note: Alberto sent his response on on Feb 19, though it does not show up in the mail archive... (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. [SHEPHERD] No IPR disclosure been filed that references this document. (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? [SHEPHERD] Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing this work. (10) 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.) [SHEPHERD] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. (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. [SHEPHERD] - just a bunch of "weird spacing" false-positive warnings (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. [SHEPHERD] The document was reviewed by the YANG doctor assigned to it. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? [SHEPHERD] Yes, 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? [SHEPHERD] The only quazi-questionable normative references are to draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-netconf-yang-push, which are being submitted to the IESG at the same time as this draft. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no downward normative references. (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. [SHEPHERD] The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). [SHEPHERD] This document does not (and rightly so) contain an IANA Considerations section. (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. [SHEPHERD] There are no new IANA registries that require Expert review for future allocations. (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. [SHEPHERD] this document does not define a YANG module, so no YANG module verification was performed. |
2019-02-15
|
17 | Kent Watsen | Notification list changed to Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> |
2019-02-15
|
17 | Kent Watsen | Document shepherd changed to Kent Watsen |
2019-02-13
|
17 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17.txt |
2019-02-13
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-02-13
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-02-13
|
17 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-09
|
16 | Reshad Rahman | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. |
2019-01-08
|
16 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16.txt |
2019-01-08
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-08
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2019-01-08
|
16 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-19
|
15 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2018-12-19
|
15 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2018-12-18
|
15 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15.txt |
2018-12-18
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-18
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2018-12-18
|
15 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-18
|
14 | Kent Watsen | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2018-10-26
|
14 | Kent Watsen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-10-23
|
14 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-14.txt |
2018-10-23
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-23
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2018-10-23
|
14 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-04
|
13 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-13.txt |
2018-10-04
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-04
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2018-10-04
|
13 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-04
|
12 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-12.txt |
2018-10-04
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-04
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alberto Prieto |
2018-10-04
|
12 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-03
|
11 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-11.txt |
2018-08-03
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-03
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2018-08-03
|
11 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-02
|
10 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-10.txt |
2018-07-02
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-02
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2018-07-02
|
10 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-04
|
09 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-09.txt |
2018-05-04
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-04
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2018-05-04
|
09 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-19
|
08 | Mehmet Ersue | Closed request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS with state 'Team Will not Review Document' |
2018-03-07
|
08 | Kent Watsen | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2018-03-07
|
08 | Kent Watsen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Internet Standard |
2018-03-07
|
08 | Kent Watsen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-03-07
|
08 | Kent Watsen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-03-07
|
08 | Kent Watsen | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None |
2018-02-23
|
08 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-08.txt |
2018-02-23
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-23
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2018-02-23
|
08 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-09
|
07 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-07.txt |
2018-02-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2018-02-09
|
07 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-30
|
06 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-06.txt |
2017-10-30
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-30
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2017-10-30
|
06 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-03
|
05 | Alberto Prieto | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-05.txt |
2017-10-03
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-03
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2017-10-03
|
05 | Alberto Prieto | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-03
|
04 | Alberto Prieto | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-04.txt |
2017-07-03
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-03
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Alexander Clemm , Alberto Prieto , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2017-07-03
|
04 | Alberto Prieto | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-07
|
03 | Eric Voit | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-03.txt |
2017-06-07
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-07
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Sharon Chisholm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2017-06-07
|
03 | Eric Voit | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-02
|
02 | Alberto Prieto | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-02.txt |
2017-05-02
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-02
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Sharon Chisholm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard |
2017-05-02
|
02 | Alberto Prieto | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-15
|
01 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Added to session: IETF-98: netconf Tue-1640 |
2016-10-31
|
01 | Alberto Prieto | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-01.txt |
2016-10-31
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-31
|
00 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netconf-chairs@ietf.org, "Alexander Clemm" , "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard" , "Hector Trevino" , "Alberto Prieto" , "Sharon Chisholm" , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netconf-chairs@ietf.org, "Alexander Clemm" , "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard" , "Hector Trevino" , "Alberto Prieto" , "Sharon Chisholm" , "Eric Voit" , "Ambika Tripathy" |
2016-10-31
|
00 | Alberto Prieto | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-26
|
00 | Benoît Claise | This document now replaces draft-gonzalez-netconf-event-notifications instead of None |
2016-09-08
|
00 | Alberto Prieto | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-00.txt |