YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20

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-teas-attachment-circuit@ietf.org, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service
   (ACaaS)'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20.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-teas-attachment-circuit/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment
   Circuits (ACs).  This model can be used for the provisioning of ACs
   before or during service provisioning (e.g., Network Slice Service).
   The document also specifies a service model for managing bearers over
   which ACs are established.

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? 

The WG's last call on the set of documents dealing with the attachment circuits
work was launched to both OPSAWG and TEAS mailing lists. Few WG members
responded expressing support for the last call (one of them being
authors/contributors), all providing positive feedback.

There was no objection to publication.

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?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been
reported.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Luis M. Contreras. The
   Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  All expert reviews have been completed with no blocking issues

RFC Editor Note