YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers'
  (draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-10.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Configuration Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines two YANG 1.1 modules with reusable groupings
   for managing UDP clients and UDP servers.

Notes to the RFC editor

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Please replace "RFC XXXX" with the assigned RFC number prior to
   publication.  Note that there are also several occurrences of "RFC
   XXXX" in the YANG modules.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Per Shepherd's Report:

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Thomas Graf. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

RFC Editor Note