Translation of Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) MIB Modules to YANG Modules
draft-ietf-netmod-smi-yang-05

[Ballot comment]
There is no overt reference to how internationalized strings convert between SMI and YANG. However, taking a quick peek at RFC 2579, it appears that all displayable text strings are UTF-8, so I am not so worried that I think I need to DISCUSS. But I would appreciate the author and shepherd confirming that there is no problem.

[Ballot comment]
s4.2: Is it worth having a default yang statement added to all converted MIBs that says this module was converted from SMIv2 to YANG using RFC X?  Maybe it's called conversion?

[Ballot comment]
Just wanna check two things, they're probably ok already
though...

1. An ASN.1 INTEGER can be multi-precision (e.g. 2048 bits). Not sure
if that's allowed in SMIv2 but if so, worth a mention? Section 2
implies 32 bits is enough. 

2. OID arcs can similarly be >32 bits long so if those were just
mapped to 32 bit values that'd be bad.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three
IANA actions that must be completed.

First, in the namespace registry of the IANA XML Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

the following entry will be added:

id: ietf-yang-smiv2
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-smiv2
Registration template: [ as in Section 12 of the RFC-to-be ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, also in the namespace registry of the IANA XML Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

the following entry will be added:

id: smiv2
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:smiv2
Registration template: [ as in Section 12 of the RFC-to-be ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the YANG Module Names subregistry of the YANG Parameters
registry located at:

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

a new YANG Module will be added as follows:

Name: ietf-yang-smiv2
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-smiv2
Prefix: smiv2
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon approval
of this document.
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC6020].

name: ietf-yang-smiv2
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-smiv2
prefix: smiv2
reference: RFC XXXX

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (Translation of SMIv2 MIB Modules to YANG Modules) to Proposed Standard





The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language

WG (netmod) to consider the following document:

- 'Translation of SMIv2 MIB Modules to YANG Modules'

  as a 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 2012-04-12. 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





  YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration and

  state data manipulated by the NETCONF protocol, NETCONF remote

  procedure calls, and NETCONF notifications.  The Structure of

  Management Information (SMIv2) defines fundamental data types, an

  object model, and the rules for writing and revising MIB modules for

  use with the SNMP protocol.  This document defines a translation of

  SMIv2 MIB modules into YANG modules, enabling read-only access to

  data objects defined in SMIv2 MIB modules via NETCONF.









The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-smi-yang/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-smi-yang/ballot/





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

Document write-up by David Kessens:

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

David Kessens is the shepherd for this document.
I have personally read and reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

This document has had a lot of review and discussion. It went through two working group last calls. The first last call uncovered a few issues and a new version was submitted. The last Last call was to confirm that the changes where applied properly and no more issues were brought up.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

No.

  (1.e)  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 solid. There has been a lot of discussion and extensive comments and it is clear that this document is ready.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

Yes:
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)   
          No issues found here.


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA section is appropriate and reservations have not been requested yet.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

No, but there are two implementations: Tail-f is now using Juergen's libsmi implementation in their product and we have a second independent implementation from SNMP Research.

  (1.k)  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

            This document defines a translation of
            SMIv2 MIB modules into YANG modules, enabling read-only
            access to data objects defined in SMIv2 MIB modules via NETCONF.

          Working Group Summary
           
            The normal WG process was followed and the document has been
            discussed extensively. The document reflects WG consensus,
            with nothing special worth noting.
         
          Document Quality
         
            The document was extensively reviewed and there are two
            independent implementations.

          Personnel
         
          David Kessens is the Document Shepherd
          Dan Romascanu is the responsible Area Director