Common YANG Data Types
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

ID: yang:ietf-inet-types
URI:urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
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. 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 in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-yang-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types
Prefix: yang
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-inet-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types
Prefix: inet
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

IANA Question --> Should other references to RFC6691 in https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-sid be updated to point to [ RFC-to-be ] instead of RFC6691?

We understand 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-10-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Common YANG Data Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-10-08. 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 collection of common data types to be used
  with the YANG data modeling language.  This version of the document
  adds several new type definitions and obsoletes RFC 6991.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis/



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

Changed action holders to Jürgen Schönwälder, Mahesh Jethanandani, Kent Watsen (Jurgen to address expert review comments. Kent, could you track, and let me know when the document is ready for IETF LC. Thanks.)

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 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  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:

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.

Shepherd (from the Abstract):

    This document defines a collection of common data types to be
    used with the YANG data modeling language. This version of the
    document adds several new type definitions and obsoletes RFC 6991.




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?

Shepherd:

  There was a great debate with regards to if the "ipv[46]-address"
  types defined in RFC 6021 should be changed to not support zones.
  Despite RFC 6991 defining "ipv[46]-address-no-zone" types, many
  continued to be surprised that a zone could be configured.  There
  was a rough 50/50 split, to which the chairs decided that no change
  was the most conservative action. 

  There was a last-ditch proposal that seemed viable (to add an
  "ipv[46]-address-with-zone" type and deprecate the existing
  "ipv[46]-address" type, i.e., to have no default) didn't get
  enough support for the chairs to veer off of their "no change"
  decision.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of implementations or commitments,
  but the modules defined in this document are absolutely
  fundamental, so much as that they're coded into the YANG
  utilities `pyang` and `yanglint`, that there is no doubt
  the definitions in this document have been scrutinized.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is Robert Wilton.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -15 update.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the two
  modules defined in this document using both `yanglint` and `pyang`,
  with neither returning any errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ yanglint ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not, anymore, have concerns about
  the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
  performed.


(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need review from a particular or broader perspective.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.



(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?

Shepherd:

  The authors confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZMHBDiBvFfLRjV4EDH9D9V5eOj8



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.



(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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document is reasonably strong, as a
  number of folks engaged in discussions over the course of time.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -15, which has a number of "line too long"
  warnings, all of which are due to the author using UTF-8 encodings
  for his name.


  Idnits generated the following warning, which is okay given the document
  explicitly identified invaliad IP address ranges:

    == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.


  Idnits also generated this warning, for which I cannot determine why:

    Miscellaneous warnings:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
      first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
      necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
      take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
      authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
      rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer.
      Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment.
      (See the Legal Provisions document at
      https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)




(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd:

  The document is written by a YANG Doctor, and hence did not go through a
  YANG Doctor review.



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to be correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  There are no downward normative references.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The publication of this document obsoletes RFC 6991, and it is listed
  as such in the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed
  in the introduction.



(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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the YANG modules
  and their namespaces.  The registrations look proper, except the
  following change should be applied to reflect latest guidance:

    OLD: Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
    NEW: Registrant Contact: The IESG



(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.

Shepherd:

  None of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ yanglint ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd tested the formatting using these two commands:

    $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
      ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang > new.yang && diff \
      ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang new.yang

    $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
      ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang > new.yang && diff
      ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang new.yang


  Both of which produced substantial albiet innocuous diffs.
  For example, the author chose to indent one less character
  in 'description' statements which, honestly, is equally
  readable, and some may argue as better.  In another example,
  the formatting output was clearly worse, and so immediately
  discounted.  None of the formatting was structually improved.

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 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  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:

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.

Shepherd (from the Abstract):

    This document defines a collection of common data types to be
    used with the YANG data modeling language. This version of the
    document adds several new type definitions and obsoletes RFC 6991.




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?

Shepherd:

  There was a great debate with regards to if the "ipv[46]-address"
  types defined in RFC 6021 should be changed to not support zones.
  Despite RFC 6991 defining "ipv[46]-address-no-zone" types, many
  continued to be surprised that a zone could be configured.  There
  was a rough 50/50 split, to which the chairs decided that no change
  was the most conservative action. 

  There was a last-ditch proposal that seemed viable (to add an
  "ipv[46]-address-with-zone" type and deprecate the existing
  "ipv[46]-address" type, i.e., to have no default) didn't get
  enough support for the chairs to veer off of their "no change"
  decision.


Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? 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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of implementations or commitments,
  but the modules defined in this document are absolutely
  fundamental, so much as that they're coded into the YANG
  utilities `pyang` and `yanglint`, that there is no doubt
  the definitions in this document have been scrutinized.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is Robert Wilton.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -15 update.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the two
  modules defined in this document using both `yanglint` and `pyang`,
  with neither returning any errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ yanglint ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not, anymore, have concerns about
  the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
  performed.


(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need review from a particular or broader perspective.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.



(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?

Shepherd:

  The authors confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZMHBDiBvFfLRjV4EDH9D9V5eOj8



(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.



(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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document is reasonably strong, as a
  number of folks engaged in discussions over the course of time.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -15, which has a number of "line too long"
  warnings, all of which are due to the author using UTF-8 encodings
  for his name.


  Idnits generated the following warning, which is okay given the document
  explicitly identified invaliad IP address ranges:

    == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.


  Idnits also generated this warning, for which I cannot determine why:

    Miscellaneous warnings:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
      first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is usually
      necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that
      take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can contact all
      authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78
      rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer.
      Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment.
      (See the Legal Provisions document at
      https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)




(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd:

  The document is written by a YANG Doctor, and hence did not go through a
  YANG Doctor review.



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to be correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  There are no downward normative references.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The publication of this document obsoletes RFC 6991, and it is listed
  as such in the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed
  in the introduction.



(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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the YANG modules
  and their namespaces.  The registrations look proper, except the
  following change should be applied to reflect latest guidance:

    OLD: Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
    NEW: Registrant Contact: The IESG



(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.

Shepherd:

  None of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ yanglint ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd tested the formatting using these two commands:

    $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
      ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang > new.yang && diff \
      ietf-yang-types@2023-01-23.yang new.yang

    $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
      ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang > new.yang && diff
      ietf-inet-types@2023-01-23.yang new.yang


  Both of which produced substantial albiet innocuous diffs.
  For example, the author chose to indent one less character
  in 'description' statements which, honestly, is equally
  readable, and some may argue as better.  In another example,
  the formatting output was clearly worse, and so immediately
  discounted.  None of the formatting was structually improved.