A Yang Data Model for IGMP/MLD Proxy
draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-06
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | 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 1 November 2019. (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? Proposed Standard (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: This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The YANG module in this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA). 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? The WG process was straightforward. There is good support for the document, no issues raised. 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, YANG 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? Not aware of any implementations, but 5 different vendors have worked on the draft. YANG doctor review found a few nits. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alvaro Retana. (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 reviewed the document and believes it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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 concerns. (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? Authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (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? No objections. A handful of people apart from the authors supported it in WGLC. 5 vendors have worked together, so regard that as pretty good support. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. YANG doctor only found minor nits. They have been addressed in the latest version. (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? There is a reference to the pim YANG model, which should be published shortly. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (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 8126). There are updates to existing registries. They have been clearly identified. (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. None (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, YANG modules, etc. I have not checked this, but the YANG doctor review did not raise any concerns. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? I have not checked this myself. If needed I can try to get the help from the authors. I tried one of these tools, but looks like it may not be working. |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | 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 1 November 2019. (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? Proposed Standard (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: This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy devices. The YANG module in this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA). 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? The WG process was straightforward. There is good support for the document, no issues raised. 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, YANG 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? Not aware of any implementations, but 5 different vendors have worked on the draft. YANG doctor review found a few nits. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd Stig Venaas. AD Alvaro Retana. (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 reviewed the document and believes it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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 concerns. (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? Authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No (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? No objections. A handful of people apart from the authors supported it in WGLC. 5 vendors have worked together, so regard that as pretty good support. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. YANG doctor only found minor nits. They have been addressed in the latest version. (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? There is a reference to the pim YANG model, which should be published shortly. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (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 8126). There are updates to existing registries. They have been clearly identified. (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. None (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, YANG modules, etc. I have not checked this, but the YANG doctor review did not raise any concerns. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? I have not checked this myself. If needed I can try to get the help from the authors. I tried one of these tools, but looks like it may not be working. |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Notification list changed to stig@venaas.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-12-10
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas |
|
2021-08-30
|
06 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-06.txt |
|
2021-08-30
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-08-30
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> |
|
2021-08-30
|
06 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-05-20
|
05 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-05.txt |
|
2021-05-20
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-05-20
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> |
|
2021-05-20
|
05 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-08
|
04 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-04.txt |
|
2021-04-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-04-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> |
|
2021-04-08
|
04 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-23
|
03 | Jan Lindblad | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jan Lindblad. Sent review to list. |
|
2021-03-17
|
03 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jan Lindblad |
|
2021-03-17
|
03 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jan Lindblad |
|
2021-03-16
|
03 | Stig Venaas | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
|
2020-11-12
|
03 | Stig Venaas | Added to session: IETF-109: pim Mon-1600 |
|
2020-10-17
|
03 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-03.txt |
|
2020-10-17
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-10-17
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2020-10-17
|
03 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-05-17
|
02 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-02.txt |
|
2020-05-17
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-05-17
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: pim-chairs@ietf.org, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: pim-chairs@ietf.org, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2020-05-17
|
02 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-17
|
01 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-01.txt |
|
2019-11-17
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-11-17
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@huawei.com>, Mani Panchanathan <mapancha@cisco.com>, Mahesh Sivakumar <sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com>, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com> |
|
2019-11-17
|
01 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-28
|
00 | Hongji Zhao | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-00.txt |
|
2019-10-28
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2019-10-27
|
00 | Hongji Zhao | Set submitter to "Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pim-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2019-10-27
|
00 | Hongji Zhao | Uploaded new revision |