YANG module file name convention
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-14

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'YANG module file name convention' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'YANG module file name convention'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Modeling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document presents YANG module file name convention.  The
   convention extends the current YANG module file name using
   revision-date, with the YANG semantic version extension.  The YANG
   semantic version extension allows for an informative version to be
   associated with a particular YANG module revision.

   This documents updates RFCs 6020, 7950, and draft-ietf-netmod-
   rfc8407bis.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

See my Cliffs Notes at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/_reM8S2AYyDMsTR2x2md2VPCK8Y/
and the Shepherd Report on the discussion.

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, 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?

See Shepherd Report.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Lou Berger. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note