Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-12
(1) What type of RFC is being requested
Publication is being requested a Proposed Standard.
This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model.
This status is shown on the title page.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Technical Summary:
This document defines an L2VPN Network YANG Model (L2NM) that can be
used to manage the provisioning of Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
services within a network (e.g., service provider network). The L2NM
complements the Layer 2 Service Model (L2SM) by providing a network-
centric view of the service that is internal to a service provider.
This document also defines a YANG module to manage Ethernet segments
and the initial versions of two IANA-maintained modules that defines
a set of identities of BGP Layer 2 encapsulation types and pseudowire
types.
The L2VPN model makes use of the Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model defined
in draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
Working Group Summary:
There was no controversy.
Note that the L3NM model shares much of the same history and has already
advanced to the RFC Editor queue. Work on the L3NM model and this
document gave rise to the common L2/3 VPN model that is used by both the
L3NM and L2NM models and has also advanced to the RFC Editor queue.
Note that the L3NM document attracted considerable review comments
during and after IETF last call. The authors of this document have
attempted to factor those comments into the work on this draft since
they have some relevance here.
Document Quality:
This document does not record implementation status, however,
the shepeherd is personally aware of two implementations under
development. There is plenty of interest from operators and vendors
mirroring the work for the L3NM.
Personnel:
Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Document Shepherd
Rob Wilton (rwilton@cisco.com) 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.
This document is ready for pulication. The document shepherd has
reviewed it three times: once at WG last call, once before the shepherd
write-up, and once to check that all changes from all reviews had been
made.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective.
This document contains a YANG model and so review by YANG specialists
is in order. A YANG Doctor review was conducted on -07 by Ladislav
Lhotka and the issues raised were fixed.
As this is related to Routing but is progressing in the OPS Area, an
early Routing Directorate review was commissioned at version -01 and
was performed by Yingzhen Qu. The issues raised were resolved.
Additional reviews were performed on version -10:
- by Chris Lovnick for Secdir
- by Himanshu Shah for Rtgdir
The issues raised were resolved.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document.
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.
Yes. All OK. No IPR disclosed. See threads at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ODaFQ6PgzJ3FSGPcOGslDC2bMls/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/hPKPTLF4JclrAFxjApA4D6NgyJg/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/t2FQTeC6DqM6t34gWLYVkqe7hCk/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
OPSAWG is an odd WG in that it has several different communities of
interest that rarely cross-review work. As a result, judging broad
consensus in the WG is a challenge.
Nevertheless, the enthusiastic participation by a long list of authors
and contributors, the frequent open design team tele-meetings, and the
additional reviews from five people during last call with no major
objections, suggest good consensus.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
idnits reports a few false negatives that are of no concern.
Note that reference to RFC 5143 (obsoleted by TFC 4842) is deliberate
and results from the IANA registry supporting an obsoleted spec to
enable compatibility with old, deployed implementations
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria.
YANG doctor review has been held and addressed as described above.
YANG validation shows 0 errors, 0 warnings. Note that the validation
shown in the datatracker is for an older version.
(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?
No
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs?
No
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section.
The IANA section is simple.
It requests assignments from two clearly identified registries to
register the YANG modules defined in this document and in accordance
with the allocation procedures for those registries.
It also requests IANA to maintain two YANG modules that contain
values for BGP Layer 2 Encapsulation Types and for Pseudowire Types.
Initial versions (populations) of these modules are provided and have
passed all YANG checks. Procedures for maintaining these modules are
clearly stated.
No new registries are created.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.
None
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language.
YANG validation is clean. See (12) and (20)
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
with any of the recommended validation tools
The YANG validation results are clean.
To the best of my knowledge, the model complies with the NMDA.