Skip to main content

A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management
draft-ietf-netmod-entity-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-04-02
08 (System) IANA registries were updated to include RFC8348
2018-03-26
08 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8348, changed abstract to 'This document defines a YANG data model for the management of …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8348, changed abstract to 'This document defines a YANG data model for the management of hardware on a single server.', changed pages to 60, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-03-26, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2018-03-26
08 (System) RFC published
2018-03-22
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2018-03-13
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-03-08
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-02-09
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-02-09
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2018-02-08
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-01-31
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2018-01-30
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-01-30
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-01-30
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-01-29
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-01-29
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-01-29
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-01-29
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-01-29
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2018-01-29
08 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2018-01-25
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2018-01-24
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2018-01-24
08 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-01-22
08 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer
2018-01-22
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-22
08 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-08.txt
2018-01-22
08 (System) New version approved
2018-01-22
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Andy Bierman
2018-01-22
08 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2018-01-11
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shawn Emery.
2018-01-11
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2018-01-11
07 Benoît Claise Telechat date has been changed to 2018-01-25 from 2018-01-11
2018-01-11
07 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation
2018-01-11
07 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-01-11
07 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2018-01-10
07 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
I have one correction and one question about the ietf-hardware YANG module.

        enum exa {
        …
[Ballot comment]
I have one correction and one question about the ietf-hardware YANG module.

        enum exa {
          value 14;
          description
            "Data scaling factor of 10^15.";
        }
        enum peta {
          value 15;
          description
            "Data scaling factor of 10^18.";
        }

I believe this is backwards -- "peta" should be 10^15, while "exa" should be 10^18.

----

    typedef sensor-value-precision {
      type int32 {
        range "-8 .. 9";
      }

Why is this an int32 rather than an int8?
2018-01-10
07 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-01-10
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-01-10
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-01-10
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2018-01-09
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-01-09
07 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2018-01-09
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-01-09
07 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2018-01-08
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thanks for using the security consideration template and filling in the branches of concern.  This is helpful.
2018-01-08
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2018-01-08
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-01-08
07 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-01-08
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2018-01-08
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

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

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

three new namspaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) 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 registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

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

three new YANG Module Names will be registered as follows:

Name: iana-hardware
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace (Modules Only): urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-hardware
Prefix (Modules Only): ianahw
Module (Submodules Only):
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-hardware
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace (Modules Only): urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-hardware
Prefix (Modules Only): hw
Module (Submodules Only):
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-hardware-state
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace (Modules Only): urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-hardware-state
Prefix (Modules Only): hw-state
Module (Submodules Only):
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

IANA Question --> For each of these new registrations in the YANG Module Names Registry, what should the entry be for the registry's "Maintained by IANA?" field be?

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

The IANA Services Operator understands 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 only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-01-08
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-01-08
07 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-01-08
07 Benoît Claise Ballot has been issued
2018-01-08
07 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2018-01-08
07 Benoît Claise Created "Approve" ballot
2018-01-08
07 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2018-01-04
07 Radek Krejčí Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Radek Krejčí. Sent review to list.
2017-12-31
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martinez
2017-12-31
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martinez
2017-12-28
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2017-12-28
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery
2017-12-22
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2017-12-22
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2017-12-21
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-12-21
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, Lou Berger , bclaise@cisco.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, Lou Berger , bclaise@cisco.com, draft-ietf-netmod-entity@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Hardware Management'
  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 2018-01-10. 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 for the management of
  hardware on a single server.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-entity/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-entity/ballot/


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




2017-12-21
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-12-21
07 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-11
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was generated
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Ballot approval text was generated
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was generated
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise Please extend the IETF LC till Jan 10th, due to the end of the year break
2017-12-21
07 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-12-21
07 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07.txt
2017-12-21
07 (System) New version approved
2017-12-21
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Andy Bierman
2017-12-21
07 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-12-19
06 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-12-18
06 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Radek Krejčí
2017-12-18
06 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Radek Krejčí
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger
> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. …
> 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)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It contains an new YANG model

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?
Yes

>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.
>

  This document defines a YANG data model for the management of
  hardware on a single server.  It paralles previous work done on
  Entity MIBs.

> 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?

This document has been refactored to support NMDA.  The BBF is very
interested in this work and is building on it.  Noting else notable
occurred during WG processing.

>
> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification?

There seems to be reasonable interes in this work, and the BBF is
planning on using it as a foundation for other work.

> 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?
>

There has been reasonable discusson on list about the document both
before and as part of LC.  A YANG Doctor review has been requested per
normal process.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area  Director?
>

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.

I reviewed the document both as it was progressing and in it's final
form.  I also checked the output Yang Validation (via data tracker) and
ID nits.

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

I think it important for the YANG doctor review to be completed last
part of the normal process (post WG LC, prior to completion of IETF LC)
and that the document not be published without any/all YANG Doctor
comments being addressed.

>
>
> (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.
>

Only the YANG Dr review, which has been requested.


> (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 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.

Yes, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-entity/history/

>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
>
No.

> (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? 

Generally solid, with a few more vocal supporters.  No objections.

>
> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
>
No.

> (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.

None.

>
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>
See above WRT YANG Doctors (review requested per process.)

> (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?

There is a normative reference to ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.  That
document has been through WG LC and should soon be sent to the IESG.

>
> (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.
None.

>
> (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 changed 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).
>
The IANA section is consistent and matches the general form recommended
in RFC6087bis -- with a minor change that has been discussed on the Netmod WG list.

> (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.
>

I checked the output of Yang Validation (via data tracker) and
ID nits.
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2017-12-18
06 Lou Berger Changed document writeup
2017-12-18
06 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.txt
2017-12-18
06 (System) New version approved
2017-12-18
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Andy Bierman
2017-12-18
06 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-12-15
05 Lou Berger See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/26ZMi9sTJtnnA_lNOzhquLIugsM
2017-12-15
05 Lou Berger Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2017-12-15
05 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2017-11-29
05 Lou Berger See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/CefzISXl6BuL5oHD4b3he23wuek
2017-11-29
05 Lou Berger IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2017-11-29
05 Lou Berger Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-11-29
05 Lou Berger Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-11-29
05 Lou Berger LC IPR Poll completed:

Andy Bierman: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/O24xl3_DEFlfMDnelS5oagIUabY
Martin Bjorklund: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SrSqyTy_LUF7x16Ht29LjxwR6oQ
Jie Dong: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9StsSGGNBA56ud1mrHBXuqJ24g8
Dan Romascanu: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/YX3Ygf9IXgqTdoW96PGNpLDNh_M
2017-11-28
05 Lou Berger Pre LC IPR Poll Started: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SJowANaf9lL0G3f1Z1DB8AXUBdU
Pending:
Andy Bierman
Martin Bjorklund
Jie Dong
Dan Romascanu
2017-10-16
05 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05.txt
2017-10-16
05 (System) New version approved
2017-10-16
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Andy Bierman
2017-10-16
05 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-08-21
04 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-04.txt
2017-08-21
04 (System) New version approved
2017-08-21
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andy Bierman , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Jie Dong
2017-08-21
04 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-03-13
03 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03.txt
2017-03-13
03 (System) New version approved
2017-03-13
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andy Bierman , Martin Bjorklund , Dan Romascanu , Jie Dong
2017-03-13
03 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-01-23
02 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-02.txt
2017-01-23
02 (System) New version approved
2017-01-23
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jie Dong" , "Andy Bierman" , "Martin Bjorklund" , "Dan Romascanu"
2017-01-23
02 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2016-10-31
01 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01.txt
2016-10-31
01 (System) New version approved
2016-10-31
00 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, "Jie Dong" , "Andy Bierman" , "Martin Bjorklund" , "Dan Romascanu"
2016-10-31
00 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2016-06-27
00 Lou Berger Notification list changed to "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
2016-06-27
00 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger
2016-05-13
00 Kent Watsen This document now replaces draft-entitydt-netmod-entity instead of None
2016-05-13
00 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-00.txt