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 |