Skip to main content

Common YANG Data Types
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-07-30
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-07-15
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2013-07-09
03 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2013-06-10
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2013-06-10
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from RFC Ed Queue
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was changed
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2013-06-07
03 Amy Vezza New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03.txt
2013-06-07
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2013-06-07
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-06-07
02 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2013-06-06
02 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2013-06-06
02 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2013-06-06
02 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2013-05-16
02 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2013-05-16
02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2013-05-16
02 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2013-05-15
02 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Regarding the derived-type issue raised for IP address types in the Gen-ART review: I would probably have reacted similarly to what Joel said. …
[Ballot comment]
Regarding the derived-type issue raised for IP address types in the Gen-ART review: I would probably have reacted similarly to what Joel said. Please consider adding a comment that helps clarify the issue to new readers.
2013-05-15
02 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2013-05-15
02 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
My question is for the INT and OPS ADs, not for the shepherd or authors.

This isn't REMOTELY a blocking comment for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis …
[Ballot comment]
My question is for the INT and OPS ADs, not for the shepherd or authors.

This isn't REMOTELY a blocking comment for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis, but while looking at this draft, I noticed text that was carried over from RFC 6021, that said this (and it appears a couple of times):

        The canonical format of IPv6 addresses uses the compressed
        format described in RFC 4291, Section 2.2, item 2 with the
        following additional rules: the :: substitution must be
        applied to the longest sequence of all-zero 16-bit chunks
        in an IPv6 address.  If there is a tie, the first sequence
        of all-zero 16-bit chunks is replaced by ::.  Single
        all-zero 16-bit chunks are not compressed.  The canonical
        format uses lowercase characters and leading zeros are
        not allowed.  The canonical format for the zone index is
        the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section
        11.2.";

I'm not asking about it in a draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis context (not remotely worth changing from the previous RFC).

I am wondering if these additional rules for the compressed format are used outside NETMOD? If so, I wonder if it's worth describing them in a doc that might get more attention.
2013-05-15
02 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2013-05-15
02 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
This isn't REMOTELY a blocking comment for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis, but while looking at this draft, I noticed text that was carried over from …
[Ballot comment]
This isn't REMOTELY a blocking comment for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis, but while looking at this draft, I noticed text that was carried over from RFC 6021, that said this (and it appears a couple of times):

        The canonical format of IPv6 addresses uses the compressed
        format described in RFC 4291, Section 2.2, item 2 with the
        following additional rules: the :: substitution must be
        applied to the longest sequence of all-zero 16-bit chunks
        in an IPv6 address.  If there is a tie, the first sequence
        of all-zero 16-bit chunks is replaced by ::.  Single
        all-zero 16-bit chunks are not compressed.  The canonical
        format uses lowercase characters and leading zeros are
        not allowed.  The canonical format for the zone index is
        the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section
        11.2.";

I found this odd, but I'm not even asking about it in a draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis context (not remotely worth changing from the previous RFC).

I'm wondering if these additional rules for the compressed format spread outside NETMOD to other usages? If so, I wonder if it's worth describing them in a doc that might get more attention.
2013-05-15
02 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2013-05-15
02 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2013-05-15
02 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
                                              …
[Ballot comment]
                                                    Internationalized
        domain names MUST be encoded in punycode as described in RFC
        3492


You could simplify a bit if you wanted and simply say, "Internationalized domain names MUST be A-labels as per RFC 5890". Then you can skip the reference to 3492 and 5891, since 5890 makes the forward references.
2013-05-15
02 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2013-05-15
02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot comment]
test
2013-05-15
02 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2013-05-15
02 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2013-05-14
02 Ted Lemon
[Ballot comment]
The regular expression for domain names does not cover all possible domain names.  Domain names can contain any ASCII character, not just the …
[Ballot comment]
The regular expression for domain names does not cover all possible domain names.  Domain names can contain any ASCII character, not just the ones that RFC1034 recommends—RFC1034 doesn't exclude those other characters, but merely recommends which ones should be used in names that will be used by certain protocols.

This is alluded to in the comments for the declaration, so I assume it's been thought about, but I'm a bit concerned that if the domain name data format is used to fetch a domain name that's been configured, for example in a DNS server, but that domain name contains characters not in the set defined in this document, an implementation might exhibit unexpected behavior; in any case, this wouldn't actually _work_.

Is there some strategy documented elsewhere for dealing with this problem?  Or is this only ever expected to be used in situations where non-conforming domain names can't occur (i.e., not for fetching configuration state from a DNS server)?

I realize that this question really pertains to 6201, so it may be difficult to answer now, but it became apparent when I reviewed the document, so I thought it worth asking even if there's nothing to be done about it at the moment.
2013-05-14
02 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2013-05-14
02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

I'm curious - what's a yang-identifier used for?  Wouldn't a
hint here be nice?
2013-05-14
02 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2013-05-13
02 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
In the shepherd writeup, the answer to Q7 is non-responsive to the question.  That said, I know that the author is well aware …
[Ballot comment]
In the shepherd writeup, the answer to Q7 is non-responsive to the question.  That said, I know that the author is well aware of BCPs 78 and 79, and this is a bis of his earlier document, so I'm not concerned about that point.
2013-05-13
02 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-05-09
02 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-05-09
02 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2013-05-09
02 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
I have to ask why the canonical representation doesn't end in Z (i.e., why is it different)?
2013-05-09
02 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2013-05-09
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2013-05-09
02 Pearl Liang
S)

IESG/Authors:

IANA OK. Comments in tracker.
IANA Actions - YES

NOTE: This revised review is based on version 02 of the drafted
document

We …
S)

IESG/Authors:

IANA OK. Comments in tracker.
IANA Actions - YES

NOTE: This revised review is based on version 02 of the drafted
document

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

the authors request that two new URIs be added to the registry as follows:

URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
Reference: RFC6021

URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
Reference: RFC6021

Second, this document requests that two YANG modules be added to the YANG Module Names registry located at:

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

as follows:

name: ietf-yang-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
prefix: yang
reference: RFC XXXX

name: ietf-inet-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
prefix: inet
reference: RFC XXXX

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.
2013-05-09
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-05-09
02 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise Ballot has been issued
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise Created "Approve" ballot
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2013-05-08
02 Benoît Claise Changed document writeup
2013-05-07
02 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-05-07
02 Jürgen Schönwälder IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-05-07
02 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-02.txt
2013-05-06
01 Benoît Claise State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2013-05-01
01 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2013-04-29
01 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis.  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-rfc6021-bis.  Authors should review
the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies
and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We have questions about the IANA actions requested in this document.

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

the authors request that two new URIs be added to the registry as follows:

URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

IANA Question -> We believe that these URIs have already been successfully registered by the publication of RFC 6021. Can the authors check those registrations and determine if any changes or additions are required
in the existing registration of those namespaces?

Second, this document requests that two YANG modules be added to the YANG Module Names registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xml

as follows:

name: ietf-yang-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
prefix: yang
reference: RFC 6021

name: ietf-inet-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
prefix: inet
reference: RFC 6021

IANA Question -> We believe that these YANG Module Names have already been successfully registered by the publication of RFC 6021. Can the authors
check those registrations and determine if any changes or additions are required in the existing registration of those Module Names?

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.
2013-04-29
01 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-23
01 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-05-16
2013-04-18
01 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2013-04-18
01 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2013-04-18
01 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams
2013-04-18
01 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Nicolas Williams
2013-04-17
01 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2013-04-17
01 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-04-17
01 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Common YANG Data Types) to Proposed …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Common YANG Data Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'Common YANG Data Types'
  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 2013-05-01. 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 introduces a collection of common data types to be used
  with the YANG data modeling language.  This document obsoletes RFC
  6021
.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis/ballot/


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


2013-04-17
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-04-17
01 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2013-04-17
01 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was generated
2013-04-17
01 Benoît Claise Ballot approval text was generated
2013-04-17
01 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was generated
2013-04-17
01 Benoît Claise State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2013-04-09
01 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
01 Cindy Morgan Note added 'David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com) is the document shepherd.'
2013-04-09
01 Benoît Claise State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2013-04-08
01 Benoît Claise IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-04-08
01 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis
2013-04-03
01 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed shepherd to David Kessens
2013-04-03
01 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-04-03
01 Jürgen Schönwälder Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-03-25
01 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01.txt
2013-03-22
00 Benoît Claise Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise
2013-02-06
00 Jürgen Schönwälder New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt