YANG Module Library
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-06-29
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-01
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-05-16
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-05-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-05-10
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-05-09
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-05-03
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-05-02
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2016-05-01
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-04-29
|
06 | Vijay Gurbani | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani. |
2016-04-27
|
06 | Andy Bierman | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-04-27
|
06 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06.txt |
2016-04-27
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-05 |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Mahesh Jethanandani | I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. … I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. (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? This document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates it as such in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This draft presents YANG Library, which provides information about all the YANG modules used by the network management server. Previously, this information was included as part of hello message exchange and even then it did not provide all the information, e.g. revision date of the deviation modules, information on submodules and their revisions. Working Group Summary This document is a companion document to YANG 1.1 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) although it does not preclude its use with YANG 1.0. By caching the information, clients can minimize retrieval of this frequently changing information from the server. There were 14 issues that were opened on the draft. At this point all are closed. Document Quality This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF meetings and on the mailing list. The document is short and well written. It has one nit in the IANA consideration section, where it refers to NETMOD WG instead of NETCONF WG. Personnel The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit Claise. (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. The Document Shepherd have followed the progression of the document through the WG, and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed outstanding comments in the latest draft version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherds does not have any concerns about the amount of review the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties. (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. The document does not need review from any additional parties. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No, the Document Shepherds do not have any specific concerns. (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. There authors confirmed on the mailing list that there are no IPRs related to the draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference 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? There is strong consensus from a diverse set of individuals, who have voiced support for the document. (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.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. A idnits run on the document reveals the following warning. == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119, paragraph 2: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). The document makes a reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09. There is a later revision (-11) available for the document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria encountered. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. There is a normative reference to RFC 6020 and an informative reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis. Since this document is a companion document to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, and the document is expected to progress along with this document, would it make sense to make normative reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc60202bis. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section details two changes that would be required as a result of this draft. The first is a addition in the IETF XML registry for which it follows the format in RFC 3688. The document also requests a registry entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. A YANG module validation check was done using http://www.yangvalidator.com/ to verify that the YANG module within the draft has no warnings or errors. |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-04-25
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-04-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-04-19
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-05.txt. 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 IANA must complete. First, in the ns subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ a single namespace is to be registered as follows: ID: yang:ietf-yang-library URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, in the YANG Module Names subregistry of the YANG Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ a single new module name will be registered as follows: Name: ietf-yang-library Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library Prefix: yanglib Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that the two actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-04-18
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-04-18
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-04-14
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2016-04-14
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2016-04-12
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2016-04-12
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: bclaise@cisco.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: bclaise@cisco.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (YANG Module Library) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Module Library' 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 2016-04-25. 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 describes a YANG library, which provides information about all the YANG modules used by a network management server (e.g., a Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) server). Simple caching mechanisms are provided to allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-04-11
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-04-09
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-04-09
|
05 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-05.txt |
2016-04-01
|
04 | Benoît Claise | AD review feedback provided to the NETCONF mailing list |
2016-04-01
|
04 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2016-03-26
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. … I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. (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? This document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates it as such in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This draft presents YANG Library, which provides information about all the YANG modules used by the network management server. Previously, this information was included as part of hello message exchange and even then it did not provide all the information, e.g. revision date of the deviation modules, information on submodules and their revisions. Working Group Summary This document is a companion document to YANG 1.1 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) although it does not preclude its use with YANG 1.0. By caching the information, clients can minimize retrieval of this frequently changing information from the server. There were 14 issues that were opened on the draft. At this point there are two open issues. The secdir review issue can be closed, and the second issue raised by Lada was not deemed necessary to be addresses, as it a nice-to-have. Document Quality This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF meetings and on the mailing list. The document is short and well written. It has one nit in the IANA consideration section, where it refers to NETMOD WG instead of NETCONF WG. Personnel The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit Claise. (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. The Document Shepherd have followed the progression of the document through the WG, and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed outstanding comments in the latest draft version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherds does not have any concerns about the amount of review the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties. (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. The document does not need review from any additional parties. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No, the Document Shepherds do not have any specific concerns. (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. There authors confirmed on the mailing list that there are no IPRs related to the draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference 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? There is strong consensus from a diverse set of individuals, who have voiced support for the document. (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.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. A idnits run on the document reveals the following warning. == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119, paragraph 2: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). The document makes a reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09. There is a later revision (-11) available for the document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria encountered. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. There is a normative reference to RFC 6020 and an informative reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis. Since this document is a companion document to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, and the document is expected to progress along with this document, would it make sense to make normative reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc60202bis. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section details two changes that would be required as a result of this draft. The first is a addition in the IETF XML registry for which it follows the format in RFC 3688. The document also requests a registry entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. A YANG module validation check was done using http://www.yangvalidator.com/ to verify that the YANG module within the draft has no warnings or errors. |
2016-03-25
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. … I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication. (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? This document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates it as such in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This draft presents YANG Library, which provides information about all the YANG modules used by the network management server. Previously, this information was included as part of hello exchange and even then it did not provide information on things such as revision date of the deviation modules, information on submodules and their revisions. Working Group Summary This document is a companion document to YANG 1.1 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) although it does not imply that it cannot be used with YANG 1.0. By caching the information, clients can minimize retrieval of this frequently changing information from the server. There were 14 issues that were opened on the draft. At this point there are two open issues. The secdir review issue can be closed, and the second issue raised by Lada was not deemed necessary to be addresses, as it a nice-to-have. Document Quality This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF meetings and on the mailing list. This included reviews by Lada, Juergen, and Randy amongst others. The document is short and well written. It has one nit in the IANA consideration section, where it refers to NETMOD WG instead of NETCONF WG. Personnel The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit Claise. (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. The Document Shepherd have followed the progression of the document through the WG, and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed outstanding comments in the latest draft version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherds does not have any concerns about the amount of review the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties. (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. The document does not need review from any additional parties. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No, the Document Shepherds do not have any specific concerns. (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. There are no IPRs related to the draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference 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? There is strong consensus from a diverse set of individuals, who have voiced support for the document. (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.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. A idnits run on the document reveals the following warning. == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119, paragraph 2: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria encountered. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section details two changes that would be required as a result of this draft. The first is a addition in the IETF XML registry for which it follows the format in RFC 3688. The document also requests a registry entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. A YANG module validation check was done using http://www.yangvalidator.com/ to verify that the YANG module within the draft has no warnings or errors. |
2016-03-25
|
04 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-03-25
|
04 | Benoît Claise | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-03-25
|
04 | Benoît Claise | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2016-03-24
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Changed document writeup |
2016-03-22
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-22
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-03-22
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Notification list changed to "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com> |
2016-03-22
|
04 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Document shepherd changed to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2016-02-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2016-02-02
|
04 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04.txt |
2015-12-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2015-12-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2015-12-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2015-12-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2015-12-15
|
03 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-03.txt |
2015-10-18
|
02 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-02.txt |
2015-07-06
|
01 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-01.txt |
2015-01-30
|
00 | Andy Bierman | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-00.txt |