Skip to main content

A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15

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-common-ac@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, rrokui@ciena.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits'
  (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15.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-common-ac/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The document specifies a common Attachment Circuits (ACs) YANG
   module, which is designed with the intent to be reusable by other
   models.  For example, this common model can be reused by service
   models to expose ACs as a service, service models that require
   binding a service to a set of ACs, network and device models to
   provision ACs, etc.

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? 

Yes, there were several comments and overall the WG supports the progress of
this draft as key pieces for facilitating service automation. It fills an
important gap by modeling attachment circuits in more detail than had been
done in the past, and therefore have high value.

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?

[Qin Wu] Some operators have already planned to implement this work for
network slicing automation solution.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Reza Rokui. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  All expert reviews have been completed with no blocking issues

RFC Editor Note