Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-10

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'm a little confused with some text in the draft and appreciate Benoit working with the authors to clarify text around these points.  This was previously a discuss, but the explanations provided were helpful and the tweaks discussed are appreciated.

Original questions from discuss:

1. The introductions says,
"This architectural framework identifies a set of conceptual datastores but
  it does not mandate that all network management protocols expose all
  these conceptual datastores.  This architecture is agnostic with
  regard to the encoding used by network management protocols."

As such, the data stores could be exposed for some implementations, using whatever network management protocol (likely NetCONF or RESTCONF).  If this is the case, why doesn't at least some of the security considerations template apply for at least secure transport?

2. Section 5.3.4 - Is there any integrity protection on the origin information?  If not, can it be added or is there a good reason why it’s not possible?  I realize these are conceptual models that may or may not be exposed, but if exposed and used, wouldn’t some integrity protection on this be helpful?

Thanks in advance!

[Ballot comment]
The examples in Appendix C use IP addresses from RFC1918 ranges rather than addresses from those blocks reserved for documentation. At the same time, current IAB guidance  calls for IPv6 examples in current standards-track documents. Consequently, I would suggest replacing "10.1.2.3" with "2001:DB8::BEEF:FACE" (or your favorite address from 2001:DB8::/32) everywhere.

[Ballot discuss]
Hello,

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'm a little confused with some text in the draft and have a few questions.

1. The introductions says,
"This architectural framework identifies a set of conceptual datastores but
  it does not mandate that all network management protocols expose all
  these conceptual datastores.  This architecture is agnostic with
  regard to the encoding used by network management protocols."

As such, the data stores could be exposed for some implementations, using whatever network management protocol (likely NetCONF or RESTCONF).  If this is the case, why doesn't at least some of the security considerations template apply for at least secure transport?

2. Section 5.3.4 - Is there any integrity protection on the origin information?  If not, can it be added or is there a good reason why it’s not possible?  I realize these are conceptual models that may or may not be exposed, but if exposed and used, wouldn’t some integrity protection on this be helpful?

Thanks in advance!

[Ballot comment]
(1) Please add a sentence to the Introduction explaining how this document updates rfc7950.  I know that a couple of sections explicitly indicate what part of rfc7950 they update, but having a short summary at the beginning would be nice.

(2) Section 3 says: “It is expected that the revised definitions provided in this section will replace the definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when these documents are revised.”  Why not formally Update those documents here?  [See my note above about the Update to rfc7950.]

(3) s/Section 4.4 of this document/Section 4.4 of rfc6244

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

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

two new namspaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

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

two new YANG Module Names will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

[Ballot comment]

      protocol interactions with other systems and that is neither
      conventional nor dynamic configuration.
Could you provide an example of this?


  datastore that holds the complete current configuration on the
  device.  It MAY include configuration that requires further
  transformation before it can be applied, e.g., inactive
 
If I am reading the text, this doesn't seem to be true because "system
configuration" is not included.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org, Lou Berger , bclaise@cisco.com, lberger@labn.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Network Management Datastore Architecture) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'Network Management Datastore Architecture'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-01-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Datastores are a fundamental concept binding the data models written
  in the YANG data modeling language to network management protocols
  such as NETCONF and RESTCONF.  This document defines an architectural
  framework for datastores based on the experience gained with the
  initial simpler model, addressing requirements that were not well
  supported in the initial model.  This document updates RFC 7950.




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

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


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

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It contains a new YANG model and has impact on other on-wire behavior.

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

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

  This document defines an architectural framework for datastores based
  on the experience gained with the initial simpler model, addressing
  requirements that were not well supported in the initial model.
  Datastores are a fundamental concept binding the data models written
  in the YANG data modeling language to network management protocols
  such as NETCONF and RESTCONF.  This document updates RFC 7950.

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

This work has occupied significant attention within the WG as well as
other organizations.  It is driving revision of all existing and
in-development YANG models.

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

While it is unclear when vendors will be implementing revised
datastores, significant vendors and users have shown interest in this
work as well as willingness to support it by updating existing and
in-development models.

> Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?
>

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

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area  Director?
>

Benoit Claise

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.

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

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

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

>
>
> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
> took place.
>

Only the YANG Dr review, which has been requested.


> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

This is a major change to YANG infrastructure and full implementation
requires updates to protocols used to access YANG modeled data, as well
as implementation supporting these revisions.  This work continues an is
not fully complete which presents some risk to requiring future changes
in this document.  The dependencies have been explicitly discussed in
the WG and consensus is to proceed with publications.

>
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

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

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

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing this work.
No objections.

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

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

None.

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

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

>
> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

>
> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.
None.

>
> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs?
Yes, this document updates 7950

> Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

Yes, briefly.

> 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.

N/A

>
>
> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
>
The IANA section is consistent and matches the general form recommended
in RFC6087bis.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
>
None.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
>

I checked the output of Yang Validation (via data tracker) and
ID nits.