As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
This document is a standards track document, targeting the status of
proposed standard. It replaces and therefore obsoletes RFC 7277 also
a standards track document.
for a comparison between the original RFC and the WG document version 1
(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:
This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations. The data model includes configuration and system
state. This document obsoletes RFC 7277.
The "ipv4" and "ipv6" subtrees with "config false" data nodes in the
"/interfaces-state/interface" subtree are deprecated. All "config
false" data nodes are now present in the "ipv4" and "ipv6" subtrees
in the "/interfaces/interface" subtree.
Servers that do not implement NMDA (the Netconf Management
Datastore Architecture), or that wish to support client that do not
implement NMDA, MAY implement the deprecated "ipv4" and
"ipv6" subtrees in the "/interfaces-state/interface" subtree.
Working Group Summary
Working Group last call commenced on 28 Nov 2017 and completed
14 Dec 2017. Changes were largely editorial. Vladimir Vassilev noted
that updated implementations he was working with could validate the
module and included examples. A bug was noted in the
ietf-netconf-datastores for which a correction was proposed.
There are known implementations that employ the rfc7277 data model
for ip manangement as well as the bis draft model.
Joel Jaeggli 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 shepherd reviewed the working group adoption and last call activity,
proposed changes within the document, as well as the state of yang
validation. The shepherd concludes that the documents is ready for IETF
last call and IESG Review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any 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
Yang doctors review will need to be scheduled during IETF last call to
occur prior to IESG review.
(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
No specific concerns exist.
(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.
The shepherd is not aware of any IPR disclosures lodged against
RFC 7277 before or subsequent to publication or against rfc7277bis.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
Working group consensus is solidly in favor of publication.
(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 appeals are anticipated.
(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
-01 intended to address nits for during wglc. Companion documents
I-D.draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis will be in misref until it is also
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type review be
validation of the model passes. Examples included for reference can
be processed using the model.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
Yes. companion documents (interface management model, revised datastores)
will be advanced.
(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.
(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.
Yes, it will obsolete, rfc7277.
(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 requests for IANA in the document were fullfilled by RFC 7277.
(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.
No new registries are created.
(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.
These can be validated by the model validation tools.