YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol
draft-ietf-ospf-yang-29
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-09-23
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-11-02
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2021-11-01
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-10-27
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2021-10-22
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-09-07
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-07-27
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-07-27
|
29 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-10-17
|
29 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-29.txt |
2019-10-17
|
29 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2019-10-17
|
29 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-23
|
28 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> |
2019-09-23
|
28 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com |
2019-09-23
|
28 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski |
2019-08-30
|
28 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-08-30
|
28 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2019-08-29
|
28 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2019-08-27
|
28 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2019-08-27
|
28 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-08-27
|
28 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Martínez was marked no-response |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Amy Vezza | Downref to RFC 4973 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28 |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Amy Vezza | Downref to RFC 1765 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28 |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSSes and COMMENTs. |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my Discuss and Comment points! |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-26
|
28 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28.txt |
2019-08-26
|
28 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-26
|
28 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-08-26
|
28 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-25
|
27 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] ["string" type for raw keys is intentional, and incentive to move to the more modern key-chain model] (2) Do we need to say … [Ballot discuss] ["string" type for raw keys is intentional, and incentive to move to the more modern key-chain model] (2) Do we need to say anything about how to indicate when there are discontinuities for the various "counter" types? |
2019-08-25
|
27 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-08-23
|
27 | Alvaro Retana | Acee mentioned the next revision will have an updated Security Considerations. |
2019-08-23
|
27 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-08-22
|
27 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-08-22
|
27 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-08-22
|
27 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-27.txt |
2019-08-22
|
27 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-22
|
27 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-08-22
|
27 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-22
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-08-22
|
26 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Section 2.7 Why are the neighbor configuration and operational state under different subtrees here? I thought one of the goals of NMDA … [Ballot comment] * Section 2.7 Why are the neighbor configuration and operational state under different subtrees here? I thought one of the goals of NMDA was to avoid this. * Section 2.9 Is there a reason why the clear operation for neighbors is defined using an RPC operation instead of simply an action under the relevant interface? * Meta comment NMDA is misspelt as NDMA in several places throughout the document including the abstract and the introduction. Suggest a global search and replace. Editorial ======== * Under ospfv2-lsa-option s/Baes idenity/Base identity/ |
2019-08-22
|
26 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-08-22
|
26 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I support Roman's and Ben's DISCUSSes. |
2019-08-22
|
26 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] (1) Can we check whether it's okay to use the yang "string" type for raw cryptographic keys (e.g., ospfv2-key, ospfv3-key)? My understanding was … [Ballot discuss] (1) Can we check whether it's okay to use the yang "string" type for raw cryptographic keys (e.g., ospfv2-key, ospfv3-key)? My understanding was that yang strings were limited to human-readable, but that the crypto keys could be raw binary values. (2) Do we need to say anything about how to indicate when there are discontinuities for the various "counter" types? |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I'm happy to see the discussion around Roman's Discuss. Section 1 YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950] is a data definition language … [Ballot comment] I'm happy to see the discussion around Roman's Discuss. Section 1 YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950] is a data definition language used to define the contents of a conceptual data store that allows networked devices to be managed using NETCONF [RFC6241]. YANG is proving relevant beyond its initial confines, as bindings to other interfaces (e.g., ReST) and encodings other than XML (e.g., JSON) are being defined. This text feels a bit stale at this point. Section 2 model varies among router vendors. Differences are observed in terms of how the protocol instance is tied to the routing domain, how multiple protocol instances are be instantiated among others. nit: the grammar here is a bit odd, with the comma suggesting the start of a list but no "and" present. Section 2.2 The ospf module is intended to match to the vendor specific OSPF configuration construct that is identified by the local identifier 'name'. I don't really understand what this is intended to mean. Section 2.7 hello-timer in the module claims to be a rt-types:timer-value-seconds16 but shows up in the tree(s) as a uint32. Similarly, the wait-itmer is a rt-types:timer-value-seconds32, which also shows up in the tree(s) as a uint32, which is perhaps more reasonable but perhaps not entirely accurate. Other 'timer' leafs seem to have similar issues. Section 3 feature ospfv2-authentication-trailer { description "Use OSPFv2 authentication trailer for OSPFv2 authentication."; Is the feature for "use" or "support for"? (Similarly for the ospfv3 authentication features.) identity ospfv2-lsa-option { description "Baes idenity for OSPFv2 LSA option flags."; nit: "Base" identity v2-p-bit { base ospfv2-lsa-option; description "Only used in type-7 LSA. When set, an NSSA border router should translate the type-7 LSA to a type-5 LSA."; There seem to be a few "identity -bit" stanzas whose description do not mention the named bit specifically (but many that do). Do we want to be consistent about doing so? (Likewise for -flag.) grouping tlv { description "Type-Length-Value (TLV)"; leaf type { type uint16; description "TLV type."; } leaf length { type uint16; description "TLV length (octets)."; } leaf value { type yang:hex-string; description "TLV value."; Is there a way to apply a constraint so the 'length' matches the hext-string's length? grouping router-capabilities-tlv { The various descriptions hereunder could perhaps benefit from section references, as, e.g., two nodes named "informational-capabilities" may otherwise require some effort to distinguish. Well, aside from the fact that one is currently listed as "capabilitiess" with two esses, which seems unlikely to be intended. grouping ospf-router-lsa-bits { container rputer-bits { s/rputer/router/? container te-opaque { [...] container link-tlv { description "Describes a singel link, and it is constructed of a set of Sub-TLVs."; s/singel/single/ grouping ospfv3-lsa-external { [...] leaf referenced-link-state-id { type yang:dotted-quad; RFC 5340 section 2.2 implies that the Link State ID is going to be a 32-bit identifier that need not be represented as dotted-quad, as it does not have addressing semantics. (dotted-quad seems to be used for Link-State-ID-shaped things elsewhere, too, though the preferred form may be the union of dotted-quad and uint32.) grouping lsa-common { description "Common fields for OSPF LSA representation."; leaf decode-completed { type boolean; description "The OSPF LSA body was successfully decoded other than unknown TLVs. Unknown LSAs types and OSPFv2 unknown opaque LSA types are not decoded. Additionally, malformed LSAs are generally not accepted and are not be in the Link State Database."; nit: "are not be" is not grammatical. grouping lsa-key { description "OSPF LSA key."; This could maybe benefit from a more descriptive description; is this a sort or lookup key, for example? container database { description "Container for per AS-scope LSA statistics."; list as-scope-lsa-type { [...] leaf lsa-cksum-sum { type uint32; description "The sum of the LSA checksums of the LSA type."; [It's not entirely clear to me why this sum-of-checksums is a useful thing to track, but it may not be this document's role to do so. Though, perhaps we do need to say if the sum is computed as integers modulo 2**32.] leaf transmit-delay { type uint16; units seconds; description "Estimated time needed to transmit Link State Update (LSU) packets on the interface (seconds). LSAs have their age incremented by this amount on advertised on the interface. A sample value would be 1 second."; nit: "on advertised on" does not seem grammatical. leaf lls { [...] container ttl-security { Should these have a default value? case ospfv3-auth-ipsec { when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../../rt:type, " + "'ospfv3')" { description "Applied to OSPFv3 only."; } if-feature ospfv3-authentication-ipsec; leaf sa { type string; I don't see RFC 4552 talking about names for SAs; where would this be discussed (and, are they guaranteed to be human-readable)? leaf poll-interval { type uint16; units seconds; description "Neighbor poll interval (seconds) for sending OSPF hello packets to discover the neighbor on NBMA networks. This interval dictates the granularity for discovery of new neighbors. A sample would be 2 minutes for a legacy Packet Data Network (PDN) X.25 network."; Maybe "2 minutes (120 seconds)" since the units are seconds? container preference { description "Route preference configuration In many implementations, preference is referred to as administrative distance."; nit: missing sentence break? For the spf- and lsa-logs, do we require that the 'id' is assigned in any particular order, or do we just rely on the included timestamp(s) for any time-ordering required by the consumer? grouping notification-neighbor { [...] leaf neighbor-ip-addr { type yang:dotted-quad; description "Neighbor address."; neighbors can only be identified by IPv4 addresses? leaf packet-source { type yang:dotted-quad; packet sources, too? (multiple times) description "This notification is sent when aa neighbor state change is detected."; nit: s/aa/a/ Section 4 Additionally, local specificationn of OSPF authentication keys and the associated authentication algorithm is supported for legacy implementations that do not support key-chains [RFC8177] for legacy implementations that do not support key-chains. It is RECOMMENDED that implementations migrate to key-chains due the seamless support of key and algorithm rollover, as well as, the encryption of key using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Key Wrap Padding Algorithm [RFC5649]. (Roman caught the nits, so I won't duplicate that.) I expected to see something about keeping the actual key material secret, as well. |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to say "The field 'version' is used to … [Ballot comment] Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to say "The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF LSA version and is mandatory." I did not review this entire document but I'm balloting based on the Gen-ART review. |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I did not review this document myself but I'm balloting based on the Gen-ART review. |
2019-08-21
|
26 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-08-20
|
26 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-08-20
|
26 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] A “discuss to discuss”. Per the convention outlined in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, thank you for clearly noting the implication of not securing these nodes … [Ballot discuss] A “discuss to discuss”. Per the convention outlined in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, thank you for clearly noting the implication of not securing these nodes properly. Furthermore, following the convention, I would have expected Section 4 to have enumerated the sensitive writeable/creatable/deletable data nodes; and the sensitive readable nodes individually. For a model this large, I can imagine that individual enumeration would be a long list. In the case of read operations, the text opens with saying that “some of the readable data nodes ...” and later says “The exposure of the ... LSDB will expose the detailed topology ...”. Can you help me understand which part of ietf-ospf.yang is the LSDB and which parts refer to “some of the readable nodes”? Is there are a difference, or is this text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control? A related line of questioning for the write operation. The text opens with saying that “There are a number of data nodes defined in ietf-ospf.yang ... [and that] [w]rite operations ... to these nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on the network operations ... [and] ... the ability to modify OSPF configuration ...” is problematic. Can you help me understand which parts of the text is the “OSPF configuration” vs. “there are number of data nodes ...”? If there isn’t a different, is the text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control? |
2019-08-20
|
26 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Idnits returned a seemingly valid few reference issues: ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1765 ** Downref: … [Ballot comment] (1) Idnits returned a seemingly valid few reference issues: ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1765 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 4973 (2) Editorial -- Section 4. Isn’t RFC8341, “the Network Configuration Access Control Model” rather than the “NETCONF access control model”? -- Section 4. Typo. s/specificationn/specification/ -- Section 4. Remove the duplicate instance of the phrase “for legacy implementations that do not support key-chains”. -- Section 4. Typo. s/The OSPF YANG module support/the OSPF YANG module supports/ |
2019-08-20
|
26 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-08-20
|
26 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-08-19
|
26 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Just two quick questions about references: - Is there no reference for mtu-ignore (see section 2.4)? If not, can you further describe what … [Ballot comment] Just two quick questions about references: - Is there no reference for mtu-ignore (see section 2.4)? If not, can you further describe what exactly would be disabled? - Also is there no reference for OSPF Non-Stop Routing (NSR) (see section 2.4)...? And one more comment: In the interface-common-config part (p76 and p77) you provide example or default values for various intervals and delays. Where does those values come from? Would it be possible to provide a reference/RFC that specifies actual default values? Especially when you specify something normatively ("The value MUST be greater than 'hello-interval'.") it would be good to provide a reference! Do any specification maybe also specify min and max value? If so, you should mention them here as well! If not would it make sense to recommend min and max values? If possible I would strongly support to describe min and max values as well! |
2019-08-19
|
26 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-08-07
|
26 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26.txt |
2019-08-07
|
26 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-07
|
26 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem |
2019-08-07
|
26 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-05
|
25 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-08-05
|
25 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25.txt |
2019-08-05
|
25 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-05
|
25 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-08-05
|
25 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-01
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-07-30
|
24 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-22 |
2019-07-30
|
24 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2019-07-30
|
24 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-07-30
|
24 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-30
|
24 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2019-07-29
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-07-29
|
24 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-24.txt |
2019-07-29
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-29
|
24 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-07-29
|
24 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-23
|
23 | Ladislav Lhotka | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-22
|
23 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-07-18
|
23 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ravi Singh. |
2019-07-17
|
23 | Erik Kline | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Erik Kline. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-17
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-07-17
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-07-17
|
23 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-07-16
|
23 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-16
|
23 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23. 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-ospf-yang-23. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services 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-ospf URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospf Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in a 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-ospf File: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Maintained by IANA? N Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospf Prefix: ospf 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 Services 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-07-15
|
23 | Stefan Santesson | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stefan Santesson. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-15
|
23 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson |
2019-07-15
|
23 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson |
2019-07-15
|
23 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2019-07-15
|
23 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2019-07-03
|
23 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline |
2019-07-03
|
23 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-07-17. 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 that can be used to configure and manage OSPF. The model is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC 7950 and conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NDMA) as described in RFC 8342. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: rfc4973: OSPF-xTE: Experimental Extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering (Experimental - Independent Submission Editor stream) rfc1765: OSPF Database Overflow (Experimental - IETF stream) |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2019-07-02
|
23 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-07-01
|
23 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-07-01
|
23 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23.txt |
2019-07-01
|
23 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-01
|
23 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-07-01
|
23 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-24
|
22 | Alvaro Retana | Acee addressed the first part of the review, but there are some remaining major comments. |
2019-06-24
|
22 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-06-22
|
22 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-06-22
|
22 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-22.txt |
2019-06-22
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-22
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-06-22
|
22 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-05
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LKvR2rfkPHJui_GMRerIdDNHkug |
2019-06-05
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-06-04
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> |
2019-06-04
|
21 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-01-27
|
21 | Acee Lindem | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The document is targeting Standard Track. It is the proper type of RFC as the document defines a standard YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines a YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is nothing particular worth noting. The document is in the WG for a while and had a lot of iterations to accommodate the required changes. Multiple synchronizations were done especially with the IS-IS YANG model work but not limited to. 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 has been reviewed by a YANG doctor and his comments have been addressed in the latest revisions. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the responsible AD. (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, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has done a deep review of the YANG model and has provided a list of comments to the authors. All the comments have been addressed as part of the latest version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concern (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. If not, explain why. yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is no disclosed IPR (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a strong consensus including people from various affiliations. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A YANG doctor review has already been done. (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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-bfd-yang is cited as a normative reference. This document is in the RFC Editor queue with a MISSREF to draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. These documents are still WG documents. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There is no real downward reference. However if the draft-ietf-bfd-yang stays stuck because of the MISSREF, draft-ietf-bfd-yang will become a downward reference. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section is fine. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No need. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2019-01-27
|
21 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-01-27
|
21 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2019-01-27
|
21 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-01-27
|
21 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-01-24
|
21 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21.txt |
2019-01-24
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-24
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2019-01-24
|
21 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-21
|
20 | Stephane Litkowski | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The document is targeting Standard Track. It is the proper type of RFC as the document defines a standard YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines a YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is nothing particular worth noting. The document is in the WG for a while and had a lot of iterations to accommodate the required changes. Multiple synchronizations were done especially with the IS-IS YANG model work but not limited to. 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 has been reviewed by a YANG doctor and his comments have been addressed in the latest revisions. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the responsible AD. (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, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has done a deep review of the YANG model and has provided a list of comments to the authors. All the comments have been addressed as part of the latest version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concern (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. If not, explain why. yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There is no disclosed IPR (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is a strong consensus including people from various affiliations. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A YANG doctor review has already been done. (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? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-bfd-yang is cited as a normative reference. This document is in the RFC Editor queue with a MISSREF to draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. These documents are still WG documents. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There is no real downward reference. However if the draft-ietf-bfd-yang stays stuck because of the MISSREF, draft-ietf-bfd-yang will become a downward reference. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section is fine. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No need. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2018-12-19
|
20 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-20.txt |
2018-12-19
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-19
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-12-19
|
20 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-10
|
19 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-19.txt |
2018-12-10
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-10
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-12-10
|
19 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-10
|
18 | Stephane Litkowski | Changed document writeup |
2018-11-27
|
18 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-18.txt |
2018-11-27
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-27
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-11-27
|
18 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-15
|
17 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> |
2018-10-15
|
17 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski |
2018-10-15
|
17 | Acee Lindem | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-10-15
|
17 | Acee Lindem | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-09-12
|
17 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17.txt |
2018-09-12
|
17 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17.txt |
2018-09-12
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-12
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-12
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem |
2018-09-12
|
17 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-11
|
16 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-16.txt |
2018-09-11
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-11
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem |
2018-09-11
|
16 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-29
|
15 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-15.txt |
2018-08-29
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-29
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-08-29
|
15 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-28
|
14 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-14.txt |
2018-08-28
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-28
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-08-28
|
14 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-26
|
13 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-13.txt |
2018-07-26
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-26
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-07-26
|
13 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-05
|
12 | Christian Hopps | Added to session: IETF-102: lsr Mon-0930 |
2018-07-02
|
12 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-12.txt |
2018-07-02
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-02
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-07-02
|
12 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-03
|
11 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-11.txt |
2018-04-03
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-03
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-04-03
|
11 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-20
|
10 | Christian Hopps | Added to session: IETF-101: lsr Wed-0930 |
2018-03-03
|
10 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-10.txt |
2018-03-03
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-03
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2018-03-03
|
10 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-28
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to none |
2018-02-28
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF) |
2017-12-06
|
09 | Ladislav Lhotka | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka. Sent review to list. |
2017-11-09
|
09 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka |
2017-11-09
|
09 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka |
2017-11-08
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2017-10-30
|
09 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09.txt |
2017-10-30
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-30
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2017-10-30
|
09 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-02
|
08 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-08.txt |
2017-07-02
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-02
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung |
2017-07-02
|
08 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-13
|
07 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-07.txt |
2017-03-13
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-13
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , "I. Chen" , Yingzhen Qu , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem |
2017-03-13
|
07 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-31
|
06 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-06.txt |
2016-10-31
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-31
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Derek Yeung" , "Dean Bogdanovic" , "Zhaohui Zhang" , "Kiran Koushik" , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, "Yingzhen Qu" |
2016-10-31
|
05 | Derek Yeung | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-25
|
05 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-07-07
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-05.txt |
2016-03-21
|
04 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-04.txt |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03.txt |
2015-09-02
|
02 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-02.txt |
2015-07-06
|
01 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-01.txt |
2015-03-09
|
00 | Derek Yeung | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-00.txt |