A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16

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-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit@ietf.org, kszarkowicz@juniper.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Operations and Management Area Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies a network model for attachment circuits.  The
   model can be used for the provisioning of attachment circuits prior
   or during service provisioning (e.g., VPN, Network Slice Service).  A
   companion service model is specified in the YANG Data Models for
   Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) (I-D.ietf-
   opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit).

   The module augments the base network ('ietf-network') and the Service
   Attachment Point (SAP) models with the detailed information for the
   provisioning of attachment circuits in Provider Edges (PEs).

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? 

Feedback in the WG mailing list for this draft is positive, and there is a
broad agreement for support of this draft, without strong controversy or
extreme discontent.

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?

One of the normative references [IEEE802.1Qcp] might not be freely available to
anyone. However, typically, the community has sufficient access to review this
reference. Two other normative references are IETF drafts. However, undergoing
WG LC at the same time as this draft.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Krzysztof Grzegorz
   Szarkowicz. The Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  All expert reviews have been completed with no blocking issues

RFC Editor Note