Skip to main content

A YANG Data Model for IP Management
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
14 (System) Notify list changed from netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg@ietf.org to (None)
2014-06-17
14 (System) RFC published
2014-06-13
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-06-10
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-06-06
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2014-04-15
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-04-15
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-04-15
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-04-15
14 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-04-14
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2014-04-14
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-04-14
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2014-04-14
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-04-03
14 Adrian Farrel [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and Comment
2014-04-03
14 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-03-28
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-03-28
14 Martin Björklund IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-03-28
14 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-14.txt
2014-03-27
13 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
We settled on this ...

OLD:

        enum link-layer {
          description
        …
[Ballot comment]
We settled on this ...

OLD:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, or an
            RFC 4941 privacy address.";
        }

NEW:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration that embeds a link-layer address in its interface identifier.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, an
            RFC 4941 temporary address, or a semantically opaque address [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses].";
        }
2014-03-27
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-03-27
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-03-27
13 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 …
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 should be a normative reference from the way it is used.

---

A number of terms are used without being mentioned in Section 1.1. From
recent experience discussing these issues in the Ops Area where it was
not clear that everyone had a common understanding of some of the terms,
the absence of referenced definitions make this a Discuss point.

configuration data
list key
tree
subtree
node
presence container
leaf-list
choice node
case node

It may be that you can make a wholesale reference such as "The
terminology for describing YANG data models is found in RFC foo" but
check that all of the terms are actually defined there.
2014-03-27
13 Adrian Farrel Ballot discuss text updated for Adrian Farrel
2014-03-27
13 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-03-27
13 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

This used to be a discuss, now a comment based on
Martin Bjorklund's mail...

"Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now …
[Ballot comment]

This used to be a discuss, now a comment based on
Martin Bjorklund's mail...

"Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now they are
not (or I missed it:-) Only reason to ask is just in case
some less common option like that isn't supported here and
where that could in future become a barrier to adoption.
I'm guessing this is ok and CGA handling is part of
"temporary" address handling probably.  Is that right? If
so, I'm not clear how various different forms of temporary
address might be handled nor why its ok to not represent
that here."

Martin says that this doesn't cover SEND and so neither
does it include CGAs.

I think it'd be good to clarity which kind(s) of temporary
addresses are/are-not covered by this and/or which
kind(s) would call for extensions to this data model.
2014-03-27
13 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-03-27
13 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-03-26
13 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-03-26
13 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-03-26
13 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
These type definition descriptions for ip-address-origin in Section 4 don't seem quite right:

        enum link-layer {
      …
[Ballot discuss]
These type definition descriptions for ip-address-origin in Section 4 don't seem quite right:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, or an
            RFC 4941 privacy address.";
        }

Randomized IIDs, whether static or generated according to RFC 4941, are used in statelessly auto-configured addresses (that is, those addresses are a subset of what is enumerated as "link-layer" above).

Also, in the random type definition for ip-address-origin, I think it makes sense to include addresses generated via draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses (about to be published as an RFC I believe).

So, perhaps the following is closer to what was intended:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration that embeds a link-layer address in its interface identifier.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, an
            RFC 4941 temporary address, or a semantically opaque address [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses].";
        }

A further question is whether the WG considered including the choice of configuring a semantically opaque address in the data model itself? I don't know enough about YANG to know whether there are extensibility options that would make that easy to add later (after further deployment of semantically opaque IIDs, say).
2014-03-26
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2014-03-25
13 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-03-25
13 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-03-24
13 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-03-24
13 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
Thanks for quickly responding to my DISCUSS.
2014-03-24
13 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-03-24
13 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
I think this will be a quick discussion, but I am concerned with the use of ipv6-address-no-zone within this document.  Is it the …
[Ballot discuss]
I think this will be a quick discussion, but I am concerned with the use of ipv6-address-no-zone within this document.  Is it the case that IPv6 addresses that need RFC 4007 scope zone information will be delineated by the parent interface information?
2014-03-24
13 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
The tables in section 3 that map YANG data nodes to IP-MIB objects are useful, but incomplete.  For example, the tables do not …
[Ballot comment]
The tables in section 3 that map YANG data nodes to IP-MIB objects are useful, but incomplete.  For example, the tables do not mention IPv4 Forwarding state being mapped to the ipForwarding object defined in RFC 4293.  Any changes related to this table should probably create reference strings in the corresponding nodes.
2014-03-24
13 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-03-23
13 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 …
[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 should be a normative reference from the way it is used.

---

A number of terms are used without being mentioned in Section 1.1. From
recent experience discussing these issues in the Ops Area where it was
not clear that everyone had a common understanding of some of the terms,
the absence of referenced definitions make this a Discuss point.

configuration data
list key
tree
subtree
node
presence container
leaf-list
choice node
case node

It may be that you can make a wholesale reference such as "The
terminology for describing YANG data models is found in RFC foo" but
check that all of the terms are actually defined there.

---

This Discuss issue is intended for discussion with the OPS ADs and is
not for action by the document authors. It will be removed from the
Discuss after we have talked about it on the IESG telechat

Are there really no tools for checking YANG consistency and
compilability?

Are there no formal review criteria equivalent to the MIB doctor and
associated guidance?

The shepherd write-up implies not.

These are surely things that we need to get in place PDQ.
2014-03-23
13 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Given how fundamental this work is, it would be nice to hear about
implementations both on the client and server side. I worry …
[Ballot comment]
Given how fundamental this work is, it would be nice to hear about
implementations both on the client and server side. I worry about this
going ahead as "speculative".

---

FWIW I find it difficult that a leaf in different trees can have the
same name. I understand that this is allowed (and even common), but it
would make it a lot easier to read if the names were distinguished.

---

Section 1.2

OLD
  o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
      (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
NEW
  o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration                     
      data (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
END

---

Pedantically...

leaf enabled and leaf forwarding make a distinction between "send and
receive" and "forward", yet leaf mtu has

          description
            "The size, in octets, of the largest IPv4 packet that the
            interface will send and receive.

That probably needs to be fixed if mtu also applies to forwarding.

---

I'm sure that IANA has already worked it out, but the IANA
Considerations section could still be usefully updated to properly point
at the registries.

OLD
  This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
  Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is
  requested to be made.
NEW
  IANA maintains a registry called "IETF URN Sub-namespace for
  Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" with a sub-registry called
  "xml".  IANA is requested to make the following registration from
  this sub-registry.
END
2014-03-23
13 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-03-23
13 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]

I just have one hopefully quickly handled question, most
likely the answer won't need changes, just educating me a
bit:-)

Should CGAs be …
[Ballot discuss]

I just have one hopefully quickly handled question, most
likely the answer won't need changes, just educating me a
bit:-)

Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now they are
not (or I missed it:-) Only reason to ask is just in case
some less common option like that isn't supported here and
where that could in future become a barrier to adoption.
I'm guessing this is ok and CGA handling is part of
"temporary" address handling probably.  Is that right? If
so, I'm not clear how various different forms of temporary
address might be handled nor why its ok to not represent
that here.
2014-03-23
13 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-03-21
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-03-21
13 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-03-21
13 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Security Considerations section for both Netmod drafts:
Add a RECOMMEND use of SSH in addition to the MTI to prevent MITM or monitoring …
[Ballot comment]
Security Considerations section for both Netmod drafts:
Add a RECOMMEND use of SSH in addition to the MTI to prevent MITM or monitoring attacks (pervasive or otherwise).
2014-03-21
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2014-03-21
13 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2014-03-21
13 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2014-03-21
13 Benoît Claise Ballot has been issued
2014-03-21
13 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-03-21
13 Benoît Claise Created "Approve" ballot
2014-03-21
13 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2014-03-05
13 Cindy Morgan Removed telechat returning item indication
2014-03-05
13 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2014-03-27 from 2014-03-20
2014-02-25
13 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-03-20
2014-02-13
13 Martin Björklund IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-02-13
13 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-13.txt
2014-01-24
12 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Peter Yee.
2014-01-23
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares.
2014-01-23
12 (System) State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-23)
2014-01-14
12 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
12 Benoît Claise Note changed to 'Thomas Nadeau  is the document shepherd.'
2014-01-14
12 Benoît Claise Document shepherd changed to Thomas Nadeau
2014-01-10
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2014-01-10
12 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-12.  This is the second
Last Call.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.
Please report any inaccuracies and …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-12.  This is the second
Last Call.  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-ip
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Filename: /ns/yang/ietf-ip
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-ip
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Prefix: ip
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.
2014-01-09
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2014-01-09
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2014-01-09
12 Amy Vezza
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 IP 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 IP 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 2014-01-23. 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 management of IP
  implementations.  The data model includes configuration data and
  state data.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/ballot/


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


2014-01-09
12 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call (ends 2013-05-03) from Last Call Requested
2014-01-09
12 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was generated
2014-01-08
12 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2014-01-08
12 Benoît Claise State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-01-08
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-01-08
12 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-12.txt
2014-01-08
11 Benoît Claise State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2013-12-03
11 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2013-11-28
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2013-11-28
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2013-11-25
11 Benoît Claise State changed to AD Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2013-11-25
11 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
2013-10-18
11 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11.txt
2013-09-04
10 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2013-08-25
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-08-25
10 Martin Björklund IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-08-25
10 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-10.txt
2013-05-16
09 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-05-15
09 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Peter Yee.
2013-05-06
09 Benoît Claise Removed from agenda for telechat
2013-05-06
09 Benoît Claise State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-05-04
09 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee.
2013-05-03
09 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-05-02
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2013-05-02
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2013-04-29
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-29
09 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:


IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09.  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-ip-cfg-09.  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-ip
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Filename: /ns/yang/ietf-ip
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-ip
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Prefix: ip
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
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2013-04-25
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2013-04-25
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-04-25
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2013-04-23
09 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-05-16
2013-04-19
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-04-19
09 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-19
09 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 IP 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 IP 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 management of IP
  implementations.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/ballot/


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


2013-04-19
09 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-04-19
09 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2013-04-19
09 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was generated
2013-04-19
09 Benoît Claise Ballot approval text was generated
2013-04-19
09 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was generated
2013-04-19
09 Benoît Claise State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
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
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-ip-cfg
2013-04-03
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-04-03
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed shepherd to David Kessens
2013-04-03
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-02-10
09 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09.txt
2013-02-06
08 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-08.txt
2012-11-15
07 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-07.txt
2012-09-05
06 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-06.txt
2012-08-14
05 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed shepherd to Juergen Schoenwaelder
2012-07-16
05 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-05.txt
2012-07-13
04 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-04.txt
2012-04-29
03 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-03.txt
2012-02-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-02.txt
2011-10-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-01.txt
2011-09-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-00.txt