Skip to main content

A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)
draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-06-08
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2023-05-22
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2023-04-20
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2023-01-30
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2023-01-30
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2023-01-30
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2023-01-27
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2023-01-26
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-01-26
15 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-01-26
15 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-01-26
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2023-01-26
15 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2023-01-26
15 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2023-01-26
15 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-01-26
15 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2023-01-26
15 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-01-19
15 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-01-19
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2023-01-19
15 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-01-19
15 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-01-19
15 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thank you to the authors for writing this, as well as to Menachem for the OpsDir review.
2023-01-19
15 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-01-19
15 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-01-19
15 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-01-18
15 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13
CC @ekline

syntax: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Nits

### S6

* "to which the SAP is attached to." -> …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13
CC @ekline

syntax: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Nits

### S6

* "to which the SAP is attached to." -> "to which the SAP is attached."
2023-01-18
15 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-01-18
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-01-18
15 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15.txt
2023-01-18
15 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2023-01-18
15 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-01-18
14 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-01-18
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I must say, without the right context and knowledge about network topology in this context it is …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I must say, without the right context and knowledge about network topology in this context it is very hard to follow figure 3. A description of the figure or reference of the document one should read to understand the topology would be a great help.
2023-01-18
14 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-01-17
14 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Ivaylo Petrov for the SECDIR review

** Section 1.
  e.g., to feed an intelligence that

Is the “intelligence” referenced …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Ivaylo Petrov for the SECDIR review

** Section 1.
  e.g., to feed an intelligence that

Is the “intelligence” referenced here talking about some autonomous or automated process?

** Section 8.
      This subtree specifies the configurations of the nodes in a SAP
      network model.  Unexpected changes to this subtree (e.g.,
      associating a SAP with another parent termination point) could
      lead to service disruption and/or network misbehavior.

Could “network misbehavior” be described less colloquially?  Is it “configuration of the network inconsistent with the intent of the operator and customer”?
2023-01-17
14 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-01-17
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-01-17
14 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-14.txt
2023-01-17
14 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2023-01-17
14 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-01-17
13 Martin Björklund Request for Telechat review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Martin Björklund. Sent review to list.
2023-01-17
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2023-01-17
13 Mach Chen Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mach Chen. Sent review to list.
2023-01-16
13 Luc André Burdet Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen
2023-01-16
13 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-01-13
13 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ItsyANCW6Oj_lsbpj7gAxWiyOfU). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ItsyANCW6Oj_lsbpj7gAxWiyOfU).

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`,
  `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
  `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
  `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-17`, but `-18` is the
latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1
```
iew can be used, e.g., to feed an intelligence that is responsible for servic
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"intelligence".

#### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
RFC4026]). Customer Edge (CE): An equipment that is dedicated to a particular
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"equipment".

#### Section 2, paragraph 3
```
itch, etc. Provider Edge (PE): An equipment owned and managed by the service
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"equipment".

#### Section 5, paragraph 22
```
and its parent interface are present but the parent interface is disabled, t
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 10.2, paragraph 29
```
oses, this section focuses on the so called "Option A" but similar examples c
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
The expression "so-called" is usually spelled with a hyphen.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2023-01-13
13 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2023-01-11
13 Ivaylo Petrov Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ivaylo Petrov.
2023-01-09
13 Mehmet Ersue Request for Telechat review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund
2023-01-09
13 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-01-19
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton Ballot has been issued
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton Created "Approve" ballot
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton Ballot writeup was changed
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton Requested Telechat review by YANGDOCTORS
2023-01-09
13 Robert Wilton Requested Telechat review by RTGDIR
2023-01-09
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-01-09
13 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13.txt
2023-01-09
13 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2023-01-09
13 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-01-09
12 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2023-01-05
12 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2023-01-05
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2023-01-04
12 David Dong IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2023-01-04
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2023-01-04
12 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-sap-ntw
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-sap-ntw
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
Prefix: sap
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2023-01-03
12 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2022-12-24
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ivaylo Petrov
2022-12-23
12 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2022-12-19
12 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-12-19
12 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adrian@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adrian@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Network Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG
Network Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)'
  as 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-01-09. 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


  This document defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract
  view of the provider network topology that contains the points from
  which its services can be attached (e.g., basic connectivity, VPN,
  network slices).  Also, the model can be used to retrieve the points
  where the services are actually being delivered to customers
  (including peer networks).

  This document augments the 'ietf-network' data model by adding the
  concept of Service Attachment Points (SAPs).  The SAPs are the
  network reference points to which network services, such as Layer 3
  Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) or Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
  (L2VPN), can be attached.  Both User-Network Interface (UNI) and
  Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) are supported in the SAP data
  model.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sap/



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




2022-12-19
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-12-19
12 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2022-12-19
12 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2022-12-19
12 Robert Wilton Last call was requested
2022-12-19
12 Robert Wilton Ballot approval text was generated
2022-12-19
12 Robert Wilton Ballot writeup was generated
2022-12-19
12 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-12-19
12 Robert Wilton Last call announcement was generated
2022-12-16
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12.txt
2022-12-16
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-12-16
12 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-12-12
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-11.txt
2022-12-12
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-12-12
11 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-10-04
10 (System) Changed action holders to Robert Wilton (IESG state changed)
2022-10-04
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-10-04
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-10.txt
2022-10-04
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-10-04
10 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-09-23
09 (System) Changed action holders to Oscar de Dios, Qin Wu, Mohamed Boucadair, Victor Lopez, Robert Wilton, Samier Barguil (IESG state changed)
2022-09-23
09 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-09-09
09 (System) Changed action holders to Robert Wilton (IESG state changed)
2022-09-09
09 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-07-30
09 Joe Clarke
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being …
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did
>    it reach broad agreement?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

>  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
>    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  3. 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
>    publicly available.)

No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
>    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
>    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
>    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself
>    (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
>    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
>    type reviews.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.

>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any
>    resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not
>    fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the
>    Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate
>    sections of the final version of the document written in a formal
>    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's
>    CDDL, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their
>    opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
>    correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible
>    Area Director?

The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
>    (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
>    Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
>    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
>    this intent?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status correctly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from all five of the authors can be found on that thread

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
>    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any
>    such normative references?

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any
>    existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly
>    reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the
>    abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why
>    and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
>    this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No change to any existing RFCs

> 20. 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 aspects of the document
>    requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate
>    reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
>    registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly
>    created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
>    procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
>    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated
>    Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
>    appropriate.

No new registries
2022-07-30
09 Joe Clarke Responsible AD changed to Robert Wilton
2022-07-30
09 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-07-30
09 Joe Clarke IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-07-30
09 Joe Clarke IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-07-28
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-09.txt
2022-07-28
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-07-28
09 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-07-20
08 Adrian Farrel
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being …
Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did
>    it reach broad agreement?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

>  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
>    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  3. 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
>    publicly available.)

No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
>    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
>    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
>    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself
>    (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
>    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
>    type reviews.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.

>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any
>    resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not
>    fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the
>    Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate
>    sections of the final version of the document written in a formal
>    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's
>    CDDL, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their
>    opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
>    correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible
>    Area Director?

The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
>    (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
>    Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
>    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
>    this intent?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status correctly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from all five of the authors can be found on that thread

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
>    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any
>    such normative references?

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any
>    existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly
>    reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the
>    abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why
>    and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
>    this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No change to any existing RFCs

> 20. 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 aspects of the document
>    requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate
>    reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
>    registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly
>    created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
>    procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
>    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated
>    Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
>    appropriate.

No new registries
2022-07-18
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did
>    it reach broad agreement?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

>  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
>    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  3. 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
>    publicly available.)

No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
>    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
>    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
>    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself
>    (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
>    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
>    type reviews.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.


>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any
>    resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not
>    fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the
>    Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate
>    sections of the final version of the document written in a formal
>    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's
>    CDDL, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their
>    opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
>    correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible
>    Area Director?

The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
>    (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
>    Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
>    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
>    this intent?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status corectly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from three of the authors can be found on that thread
(M. Boucadair, S. Barguil, Q. Wu)

**** Responses pending from O. Gonzalez de Dios, V. Lopez
    - reminder sent 15/7/22

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
>    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any
>    such normative references?

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any
>    existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly
>    reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the
>    abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why
>    and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
>    this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No change to any existing RFCs

> 20. 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 aspects of the document
>    requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate
>    reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
>    registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly
>    created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
>    procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
>    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated
>    Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
>    appropriate.

No new registries
2022-07-16
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
>    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did
>    it reach broad agreement?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

>  2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
>    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  3. 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
>    publicly available.)

No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
>    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
>    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
>    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself
>    (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
>    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
>    type reviews.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.


>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    tools for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any
>    resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not
>    fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the
>    Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate
>    sections of the final version of the document written in a formal
>    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's
>    CDDL, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their
>    opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete,
>    correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible
>    Area Director?

The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
>    (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
>    Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
>    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
>    this intent?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status corectly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from three of the authors can be found on that thread
(M. Boucadair, S. Barguil, Q. Wu)

**** Responses pending from O. Gonzalez de Dios, V. Lopez
    - reminder sent 15/7/22

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

***** Email sent to list 2022-07-17

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
>    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any
>    such normative references?

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

***** But see 15.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any
>    existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly
>    reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the
>    abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why
>    and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
>    this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No change to any existing RFCs

> 20. 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 aspects of the document
>    requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate
>    reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA
>    registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly
>    created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
>    procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
>    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated
>    Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
>    appropriate.

No new registries
2022-07-16
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
- All …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
- All issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios - reminder sent 15/7/22
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez - reminder sent 15/7/22

idnits
- clean on -08

YANG compilation
- 0 errors, 0 warnings on -08

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

2022-07-15
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez

idnits
- clean on -08

YANG compilation
- 0 errors, 0 warnings on -08

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

2022-07-15
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez

idnits
* check

YANG compilation
* check

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

2022-07-15
08 Adrian Farrel
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check …
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
* Find URL
* Check responses
M. Boucadair
O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil
Q. Wu
V. Lopez

idnits
* check

YANG compilation
* check

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

2022-07-08
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt
2022-07-08
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-07-08
08 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-06-29
07 Joe Clarke Notification list changed to adrian@olddog.co.uk because the document shepherd was set
2022-06-29
07 Joe Clarke Document shepherd changed to Adrian Farrel
2022-06-29
07 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-05-20
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-07.txt
2022-05-20
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-05-20
07 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-05-18
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-06.txt
2022-05-18
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-05-18
06 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-05-18
05 Mach Chen Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Mach Chen.
2022-05-17
05 Joe Clarke Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-05-17
05 Joe Clarke Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-05-16
05 Joe Clarke Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/tree/master/I-D-sap
2022-05-15
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-05.txt
2022-05-15
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-05-15
05 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-05-11
04 Menachem Dodge Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Menachem Dodge. Sent review to list.
2022-05-05
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Menachem Dodge
2022-05-05
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Menachem Dodge
2022-04-24
04 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-04-22
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen
2022-04-22
04 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen
2022-04-22
04 Joe Clarke Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-04-22
04 Joe Clarke Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR
2022-04-11
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-04.txt
2022-04-11
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-04-11
04 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-03-21
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-03.txt
2022-03-21
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-03-21
03 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-03-08
02 Martin Björklund Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Martin Björklund. Sent review to list.
2022-02-23
02 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund
2022-02-23
02 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund
2022-02-22
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-02.txt
2022-02-22
02 (System) New version approved
2022-02-22
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Qin WU , Victor Lopez , samier barguil
2022-02-22
02 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-02-22
01 Joe Clarke Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2022-02-18
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-01.txt
2022-02-18
01 (System) New version approved
2022-02-18
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Qin WU , Victor Lopez , samier barguil
2022-02-18
01 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-01-25
00 Tianran Zhou This document now replaces draft-dbwb-opsawg-sap instead of None
2022-01-25
00 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-00.txt
2022-01-25
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2022-01-25
00 Mohamed Boucadair Set submitter to "Mohamed Boucadair ", replaces to draft-dbwb-opsawg-sap and sent approval email to group chairs: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
2022-01-25
00 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision