A YANG Data Model for Interface Management
draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-05-06
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-04-25
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-04-19
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-01-28
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-01-28
|
16 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-28
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-28
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-27
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-01-27
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-01-27
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-27
|
16 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-27
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-27
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-27
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-27
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-23
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-23
|
16 | Martin Björklund | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-01-23
|
16 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-16.txt |
2014-01-23
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I had not reviewed a YANG data model previously. This document is about as clear as I can imagine a document with this … [Ballot comment] I had not reviewed a YANG data model previously. This document is about as clear as I can imagine a document with this content being. Nice work! |
2014-01-23
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-23
|
15 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-23
|
15 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] The document seems to gloss over the problem of interface name stability for removable interfaces.There is some mention of naming interfaces based on … [Ballot comment] The document seems to gloss over the problem of interface name stability for removable interfaces.There is some mention of naming interfaces based on slots in the appendixes, but no talk about what to do if interface names aren't stable across inserts and removals of network hardware. I'm not convinced that there is anything that can be done about this here, but it might be worth mentioning as an issue, and I didn't see it mentioned. |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] 1.1: Maybe it won't be confusing but I think those definitions mean a USB stick GSM modem would be a system controlled interface … [Ballot comment] 1.1: Maybe it won't be confusing but I think those definitions mean a USB stick GSM modem would be a system controlled interface and not a user controlled interface which seems counterintuitive. Would it be worth adding an example like that to avoid potential confusion? |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-01-22
|
15 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I agree with Adrian's comments on the relationship between this YANG module and the IF-MIB. |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-21
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-01-20
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication, but I have a few small points you may want to consider before passing this document … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication, but I have a few small points you may want to consider before passing this document to the RFC Editor. === Section 2 o The data model should include read-only counters in order to gather statistics for octets, packets and errors, sent and received. Very pedantically, out-errors is not a count of errors sent. It is a count of what could not be sent because of some error. --- Section 4 Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5 When I see "typically" or "in most cases" or "generally" (or "usually" or "normally") I look for the explanation of the variation. I don't find one in these cases. Is that significant? --- Section 4 There are two scalars in IF-MIB (ifNumber and ifTablelastChange). It would be good if this section mentioned those objects and why they are not mapped to anything in this YANG module. --- The two tables in Section 4 give good guidance on mapping between this YANG module and the objects in the tables in IF-MIB. For one object in ifXEntry, the text explains why there is no mapping (ifPromiscuousMode). Two objects in ifEntry are deprecated so it is probably reasonable to not mention them (ifOutQLen, ifSpecific). And the low capacity counters are also covered in the text. However, that leaves eight objects unmentioned. It would be helpful to show how these are mapped or explain why they are not needed. ifEntry ifDescr DisplayString, ifMtu Integer32, ifAdminStatus INTEGER, ifOperStatus INTEGER, ifLastChange TimeTicks, ifXEntry ifHighSpeed Gauge32, ifConnectorPresent TruthValue, ifCounterDiscontinuityTime TimeStamp |
2014-01-20
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-01-20
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Note field has been cleared |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Note changed to 'Thomas Nadeau is the document shepherd.' |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Benoît Claise | 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. Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cf (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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces. The set is split in two different documents: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard) draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard) And one document that describes supporting data models: draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (Proposed standard) (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 draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network interfaces. It is expected that interface type specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters for the collection of statistics. draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP implementations. draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG module for interface type definitions. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following. While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating operational state from configuration management and that this should have been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back from IESG review and worked to add this to the model. Document Quality: This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received additional review from Dave Thaler. Personnel David Kessens is the document shepherd (and Thomas Nadeau lately) Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier reviews done when the documents were Last Called. Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by the rfc editor. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews were contributed from all the major contributors to this work. (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. No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from the IP directorate. (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. None (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? We have not received any IPR disclosures. (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? Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and diverse working group with many contributing individuals. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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. This the reason we bring this as a set of document 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. 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). Done. (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. N/A |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Nadeau |
2014-01-08
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-23 |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-01-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-12-23
|
15 | Martin Björklund | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-12-23
|
15 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-15.txt |
2013-12-23
|
14 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-23) |
2013-12-20
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-20
|
14 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-14. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-14. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the namespace subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ A new namespace is to be registered as follows: ID: yang:ietf-interfaces URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces Filename: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the YANG Module Names registry located at: A new YANG Module will be registered as follows: Name: ietf-interfaces Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces Prefix: if Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that two actions 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. |
2013-12-19
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2013-12-12
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-12-12
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-12-09
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Interface Management) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language WG (netmod) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Interface 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 2013-12-23. 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 network interfaces. It is expected that interface type specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. The data model includes configuration data and state data (status information and counters for the collection of statistics). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-12-09
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call (ends 2013-05-03) from Last Call Requested |
2013-12-09
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-12-07
|
14 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2013-12-07
|
14 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-12-07
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-07
|
14 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-14.txt |
2013-12-06
|
13 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-12-03
|
13 | Jürgen Schönwälder | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2013-11-28
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD Evaluation from AD is watching::AD Followup |
2013-11-25
|
13 | Benoît Claise | 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. Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cf (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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces. The set is split in two different documents: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard) draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard) And one document that describes supporting data models: draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (Proposed standard) (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 draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network interfaces. It is expected that interface type specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters for the collection of statistics. draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP implementations. draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG module for interface type definitions. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following. While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating operational state from configuration management and that this should have been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back from IESG review and worked to add this to the model. Document Quality: This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received additional review from Dave Thaler. Personnel David Kessens is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier reviews done when the documents were Last Called. Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by the rfc editor. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews were contributed from all the major contributors to this work. (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. No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from the IP directorate. (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. None (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? We have not received any IPR disclosures. (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? Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and diverse working group with many contributing individuals. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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. This the reason we bring this as a set of document 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. 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). Done. (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. N/A |
2013-11-07
|
13 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-13.txt |
2013-07-05
|
12 | Jürgen Schönwälder | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-07-04
|
12 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12.txt |
2013-05-16
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2013-05-15
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-05-15
|
11 | Martin Björklund | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-05-15
|
11 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-11.txt |
2013-05-06
|
10 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-05-05
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2013-05-03
|
10 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. |
2013-05-03
|
10 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. |
2013-05-03
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-04-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-04-29
|
10 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Author/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Author/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the namespace subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xml#ns a single new URI will be added to the registry as follows: ID: yang:ietf-interfaces URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces Filename: /ns/yang/ietf-interfaces Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, this document requests that a single new YANG module be added to the YANG Module Names registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xml as follows: Name: ietf-interfaces Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces Prefix: if Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that these two actions 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. |
2013-04-25
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-04-25
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-04-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2013-04-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2013-04-23
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-05-16 |
2013-04-19
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce:; CC: Bcc: Reply-To: IETF Discussion List Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce:; CC: Bcc: Reply-To: IETF Discussion List Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Interface Management) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language WG (netmod) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Interface 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 2013-05-03. 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 network interfaces. It is expected that interface type specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-04-19
|
10 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10.txt |
2013-04-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (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? … (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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces. The set is split in two different documents: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09 (Proposed standard) draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 (Proposed standard) And two document that describe supporting data models: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00 (Proposed standard, obsoletes rfc 6021) draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 (Proposed standard) (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 draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09 This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network interfaces. It is expected that interface type specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP implementations. draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00 This document introduces a collection of common data types to be used with the YANG data modeling language. This document obsoletes RFC 6021. draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type and iana-afn-safi YANG modules, for interface type definitions, and Address Family Numbers (AFN) and Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI), respectively. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG consensus with nothing special worth mentioning. Document Quality: This set of documents received extensive review within the working group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices. The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received additional review from Dave Thaler. Personnel David Kessens is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier reviews done when the documents were Last Called. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews were contributed from all the major contributors to this work. (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. No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from the IP directorate. (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. None (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? We have not received any IPR disclosures. (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? Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and diverse working group with many contributing individuals. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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. This the reason we bring this as a set of document 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. 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. RFC 6021 is obsoleted. (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). Done. (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. N/A |
2013-04-09
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2013-04-09
|
09 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::AD Followup |
2013-04-09
|
09 | Benoît Claise | State changed to Publication Requested::AD Followup from Publication Requested |
2013-04-09
|
09 | Benoît Claise | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-04-09
|
09 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-bjorklund-netmod-interfaces-cfg |
2013-04-03
|
09 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
2013-04-03
|
09 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Changed shepherd to David Kessens |
2013-04-03
|
09 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-04-03
|
09 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-02-06
|
09 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09.txt |
2012-11-15
|
08 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-08.txt |
2012-10-22
|
07 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-07.txt |
2012-09-05
|
06 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-06.txt |
2012-08-14
|
05 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Changed shepherd to Juergen Schoenwaelder |
2012-07-13
|
05 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-05.txt |
2012-04-29
|
04 | Martin Björklund | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-04.txt |
2012-02-07
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-03.txt |
2011-09-07
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-02.txt |
2011-05-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-01.txt |
2011-04-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-00.txt |