A YANG Data Model for the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)
draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-18
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-10-16
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-10-06
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-09-28
|
18 | (System) | Reconnected secdir lc review and changed assignment state to completed. Reconnected yangdoctors review of -12. |
2020-09-15
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-06-15
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-04-30
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-04-30
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-04-30
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-04-30
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-04-30
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Vincent Roca was marked no-response |
2020-04-29
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-04-27
|
18 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-04-27
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-04-27
|
18 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-04-27
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-04-27
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-04-27
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-04-27
|
18 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-04-25
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2020-04-25
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-24
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2020-04-24
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-04-23
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] Random questions: * If the thing being modelled is experimental (3618) should this also be experimental (as opposed to standards track)? |
2020-04-23
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-04-23
|
18 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-04-16
|
18 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the updates. |
2020-04-16
|
18 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-04-15
|
18 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-18.txt |
2020-04-15
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-15
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Anish Peter , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar , Feng Guo , Zheng Zhang |
2020-04-15
|
18 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-13
|
17 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I'm assuming the sponsoring AD approved the presence of six authors on the document, exceeding our normal limit of five. I'm a YANG … [Ballot comment] I'm assuming the sponsoring AD approved the presence of six authors on the document, exceeding our normal limit of five. I'm a YANG newbie so for the moment I'm going to defer to those more expert at evaluating the syntax and semantics of the model described in Sections 3 and 4 while I go learn more about YANG in general. Thus, the only feedback I have is editorial stuff in Section 5: * "Modifying the configuration can cause MSDP default peers to be deleted or the connection to be rebuilt, and the SA's unexpected filtering." -- does that last clause mean "unexpected filtering by the SA"? * "The key misoperation will broke the existed MSDP connection ... " -- s/broke the existed/break the existing/, right? * "These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:" followed by a list of one subtree/node. Maybe just turn that into prose and name the singular subtree? * "... may lead to forged connection attack, ..." -- s/to/to a/ * "... the ACL nodes uncorrected modification may lead to the filter errors." -- "nodes" should be "node's" or "nodes'" * "The unauthorized reading function ..." -- perhaps "Unauthorized reads"? * "... allow the unexpected peer connection rebuilding." -- maybe "allow the unexpected rebuilding of connection peers"? * "Authentication configuration is supported ..." -- feels like this should start a new paragraph |
2020-04-13
|
17 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-04-12
|
17 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] [ballot position under construction] I'm assuming the sponsoring AD approved the presence of six authors on the document, exceeding our normal limit of … [Ballot comment] [ballot position under construction] I'm assuming the sponsoring AD approved the presence of six authors on the document, exceeding our normal limit of five. I'm a YANG newbie so for the moment I'm going to defer to those more expert at evaluating the syntax and semantics of the model described in Sections 3 and 4 while I go learn more about YANG in general. Thus, the only feedback I have is editorial stuff in Section 5: * "Modifying the configuration can cause MSDP default peers to be deleted or the connection to be rebuilt, and the SA's unexpected filtering." -- does that last clause mean "unexpected filtering by the SA"? * "The key misoperation will broke the existed MSDP connection ... " -- s/broke the existed/break the existing/, right? * "These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:" followed by a list of one subtree/node. Maybe just turn that into prose and name the singular subtree? * "... may lead to forged connection attack, ..." -- s/to/to a/ * "... the ACL nodes uncorrected modification may lead to the filter errors." -- "nodes" should be "node's" or "nodes'" * "The unauthorized reading function ..." -- perhaps "Unauthorized reads"? * "... allow the unexpected peer connection rebuilding." -- maybe "allow the unexpected rebuilding of connection peers"? * "Authentication configuration is supported ..." -- feels like this should start a new paragraph |
2020-04-12
|
17 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-04-08
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-04-08
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Telechat date has been changed to 2020-04-24 from 2020-03-05 |
2020-04-07
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the updates; they seem to address the core issues raised in my DISCUSS points. That said, I do still have a … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the updates; they seem to address the core issues raised in my DISCUSS points. That said, I do still have a couple additional requested changes. With respect to authentication, I don't think we say much about how having an authentication-type configured implies that the corresponding authentication type is to be used at runtime (i.e., TCP-MD5 given the current state of things), and contrariwise that the absence of a configured authentication type implies that unauthenticated TCP is used. Also, for the leaf descriptions: "up-time": "Indicates the duration of time since this SA entry was created in the cache. [...]" "expire": "Indicates the duration of time until this SA entry in the cache will time out. [...]" |
2020-04-07
|
17 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-04-07
|
17 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-04-07
|
17 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-17.txt |
2020-04-07
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-07
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Feng Guo , Mahesh Sivakumar , Anish Peter , Pete McAllister , Xufeng Liu , Zheng Zhang |
2020-04-07
|
17 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-21
|
16 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-03-20
|
16 | Reshad Rahman | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. Sent review to list. |
2020-03-13
|
16 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-03-08
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-03-08
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-03-08
|
16 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-16.txt |
2020-03-08
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-08
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Anish Peter , Mahesh Sivakumar , Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang |
2020-03-08
|
16 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-05
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-03-05
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2020-03-05
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Meral Shirazipour was marked no-response |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Barry Leiba | |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I only did a quick scan of this document. I am not sure whether there are any I18N considerations for this leaf: … [Ballot comment] I only did a quick scan of this document. I am not sure whether there are any I18N considerations for this leaf: case password { leaf key { type string; description "This leaf describes the authentication key."; reference "RFC 8177: YANG Data Model for Key Chains."; } |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2020-03-04
|
15 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-03-03
|
15 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] This yang modules makes use of RFC8177’s ietf-key-chain module. Please add a reference to this draft inheriting RFC8177’s security considerations and … [Ballot discuss] This yang modules makes use of RFC8177’s ietf-key-chain module. Please add a reference to this draft inheriting RFC8177’s security considerations and associated considerations (see draft-ietf-ospf-yang for reusable language). Please also clarify the link between the password and RFC8177 per the following snippet of the YANG module in the Security Considerations. grouping authentication-container { ... container authentication { if-feature peer-authentication; ... choice authentication-type { ... } case password { |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS. The binding between the authentication container and MSDP isn’t clear. |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2020-03-02
|
15 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-02-28
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I don't think there's enough clarity on what authentication schemes are supported and how the YANG configuration interacts with MSDP operation. If I'm … [Ballot discuss] I don't think there's enough clarity on what authentication schemes are supported and how the YANG configuration interacts with MSDP operation. If I'm reading^Wsearching through RFC 3618 correctly, the only supported authentication mechanism is TCP-MD5 (RFC 2385), and there have been no updates to RFC 3618 that are indicated in the RFC database. However, RFC 2385 is obsoleted by RFC 5925 (TCP-AO). Can TCP-AO be used with MSDP? What protocol elements or operation are controlled by the "authentication" container? What algorithms are valid for use with the "password" case? RFC 8177 is the sole reference for both the "key-chain" leaf and the "password" case, but that does not seem a sufficient reference from which to implement. Also, there are a couple of elements in the "state-attributes" container that say they indicate a time when something will/did happen and measure it in seconds. I don't see an indication of what the reference point is for them, though -- "seconds since when?". Further context in the COMMENT to avoid too much quoted text here. |
2020-02-28
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] This document (and the YANG module) lists six authors, which is more than the typical five and would normally spark some discussion. I … [Ballot comment] This document (and the YANG module) lists six authors, which is more than the typical five and would normally spark some discussion. I do see that the shepherd writeup indicates that all six members of the design team were quite active, and presume that this indicates that it is appropriate to have the larger author count than is typically seen. Section 2.1 This model can be used to configure and manage MSDP protocol. The nit: "the MSDP protocol". Section 3.1 MSDP configurations require peer configurations. Several peers may nit: this sentence on first read sounds like it is instantiating a dependency loop ("my MDSP configuration depends on my peers' MSDP configuration, which in turn depends on mine"). I suspect the intent is to say something like "MSDP operation requires configuration information that is distributed amongst several peers" or "MSDP operation requires that all peers active in a given group receive identical configuration information for that group" or similar. Section 4 grouping authentication-container { [...] case password { leaf key { type string; description "This leaf describes the authentication key."; reference I'm not entirely sure what is being "described" -- if this is the "password" choice (vs. key-chain), is it not the actual password itself (versus a description thereof)? leaf crypto-algorithm { type identityref { base key-chain:crypto-algorithm; } description "Cryptographic algorithm associated with key."; This is still in the "password" case, and I'm not entirely sure which sorts of algorithms you're expecting to see here. Things like "hmad-sha-256" don't really apply directly to a password, and bare hashes like sha-1 are cryptographically bad choices. grouping global-config-attributes { [...] "The default peer accepts all MSDP SA messages. A default peer is needed in topologies where MSDP peers do not coexist with BGP peers. The reverse path forwarding (RPF) check on SA messages can fail, and no SA messages are accepted. In these cases, you can configure the peer as a default peer and bypass RPF checks."; nit: I think there could be a better connection between the sentences here. Is the need for default peer (in such topologies) due solely to the potential for RPF failure? leaf peer-addr { type leafref { path "../../../peers/peer/address"; [Does this imply restrictions on where the grouping can be used in the tree?] leaf mesh-group { type string; description "Configure this peer to be a member of a mesh group"; reference "RFC 3618: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP), section 10.2."; } This description leaves the reader rather unclear about what the contents of this string-type leaf are supposed to be. leaf peer-as { [...] "Peer's autonomous system number (ASN). Using peer-as to do verification can provide more controlled ability. nits: (1) more controlled than what? (2) ability to do what? If the AS number is the same as the local AS, then the peer is within the same domain; otherwise, this peer is external to the domain. Like the definition and usage in BGP protocol."; nit: "BGP protocol" is redundant. site note: Both holdtime-interval and keepalive-interval have "must" statements asserting that keepalive < holdtime when both are present. Is it well-defined which one will trigger if an attempt is made to violate the condition? (The error message is the same for both, so this is basically just for my personal edification.) leaf elapsed-time { type uint32; units seconds; config false; description "Elapsed time for being in a state."; } Is this more properly a counter type than a uint32? leaf is-default-peer { type boolean; config false; description "'true' if this peer is a default peer."; nit(?): how can there be more than one ("a") default peer? leaf reset-count { type uint32; config false; description "The reset count of this peer."; } This one also sounds like it might be a counter. container statistics { Please double-check for whether counter and/or gauge types might be more appropriate than integer types. container state-attributes { description "SA cache state attributes for MSDP."; leaf up-time { type uint32; units seconds; description "Indicates the time when this SA entry is created in the cache. MSDP is a periodic protocol, the up-time value can be used to check the state of SA cache."; } leaf expire { type uint32; units seconds; description "Indicates the time when this SA entry in the cache times out. MSDP is a periodic protocol, the expire value can be used to check the state of SA cache."; } If these are "time" entries, that sounds like an absolute time. If it's measured in seconds, what is the reference point for that absolute time? leaf rpf-peer { type inet:ipv4-address; description "The address is used to find the SA's originating RP."; "used to find" the originating RP or *is* the originating RP? The name would suggest the latter. Section 5 This subtree specifies the configuration for the MSDP attributes at the peer level. The modification configuration will allow the unexpected MSDP peer establishment and unexpected SA information learning and advertisement. nits: s/allow the unexpected/allow unexpected/; s/The modification cofiguration/Modifying the configuration/. The "key" field is also a sensitive readable configuration, the unauthorized reading function may lead to the password leaking. The modification will allow the unexpected peer reconstruction. I think it would be appropriate to mention that the key-chain choice from RFC 8177 is designed to avoid this sort of vulnerabilities. Also, nits: comma splice in the first sentence, and s/The modification/Modification/. Also^2, is this note better placed in the "readable data nodes" section of the template? /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/msdp, Unauthorized access to any data node of the above subtree can disclose the operational state information of MSDP on this device. It would be nice to go into a bit more detail about some of the particularly important leaves under the msdp tree, and how knowing their contents might aid an attacker. E.g., the ACL nodes seem of particular interest (whether reading or writing). Unauthorized access to any of the above action operations can reconstruct the MSDP peers or delete SA records on this device. Will the reader know what "reconstruct the peer" means here (and the operational/security impact of doing so)? Section 9.1 It's not entirely clear to me that RFC 3688 is referenced in a normative (as opposed to informative) manner. Appendix A Where does the 173.104.116.8 addrss come from? I don't see it in RFC 5737 and it's not in the multicast range. Likewise for 101/8. |
2020-02-28
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-02-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-02-27
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date has been changed to 2020-03-05 from 2020-03-12 |
2020-02-26
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-03-12 |
2020-02-26
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2020-02-26
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2020-02-26
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-02-26
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-02-25
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-02-25
|
15 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-15.txt |
2020-02-25
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-25
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Feng Guo , Zheng Zhang , Pete McAllister , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-02-25
|
15 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-21
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | The YANG Dr asked for examples to be added. |
2020-02-21
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party |
2020-02-12
|
14 | Reshad Rahman | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. Review has been revised by Reshad Rahman. |
2020-02-06
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | It seems to me that the comments from the reviewers have been addressed. I'm just waiting for the YANG Dr to confirm after the latest … It seems to me that the comments from the reviewers have been addressed. I'm just waiting for the YANG Dr to confirm after the latest update. |
2020-02-06
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2020-02-05
|
14 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-14.txt |
2020-02-05
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-05
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-02-05
|
14 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-05
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-02-05
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-02-05
|
13 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-13.txt |
2020-02-05
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-05
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-02-05
|
13 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-31
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK |
2020-01-31
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2020-01-30
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | The IETF LC concluded. The authors are in the process of addressing some of the directorate reviews...and there are a couple more (GenArt + Ops) … The IETF LC concluded. The authors are in the process of addressing some of the directorate reviews...and there are a couple more (GenArt + Ops) pending. |
2020-01-30
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-01-30
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-01-30
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-01-29
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-29
|
12 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-08. 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-pim-msdp-yang-08. 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-msdp URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-msdp 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-msdp File: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Maintained by IANA? N Namespace: urn: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-msdp Prefix: ietf-msdp 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 |
2020-01-29
|
12 | Vincent Roca | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Vincent Roca. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-28
|
12 | Reshad Rahman | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-23
|
12 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-12.txt |
2020-01-23
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-23
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-23
|
12 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-22
|
11 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-11.txt |
2020-01-22
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-22
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-22
|
11 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-22
|
10 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-10.txt |
2020-01-22
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-22
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-22
|
10 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-21
|
09 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-09.txt |
2020-01-21
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-21
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-21
|
09 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-20
|
08 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-19
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2020-01-19
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shwetha Bhandari |
2020-01-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2020-01-19
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Vincent Roca |
2020-01-16
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2020-01-16
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2020-01-16
|
08 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2020-01-16
|
08 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stig Venaas , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)' 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 2020-01-30. 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 the configuration and management of Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Protocol. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-01-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2020-01-11
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-01-11
|
08 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-08.txt |
2020-01-11
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-11
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-11
|
08 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-09
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/q3sr9IB-6LT_HzsdLsmZ3U6Ntc4 |
2020-01-09
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-01-08
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-01-08
|
07 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-07.txt |
2020-01-08
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-08
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheng Zhang , Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2020-01-08
|
07 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-08
|
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 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? Standards track. The YANG model is for a widely deployed protocol. While the protocol is experimental, the model itself is not an experiment. (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 for the configuration and management of the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Protocol. Working Group Summary The WG has a YANG model design team. 6 member of the team (from a handful of vendors) have worked on this. It is based on implementations from these and other vendors. This indicates good vendor support. Aside from this, only 2 people supported the document for the WGLC, but none have raised any issues during the WGLC or in the WG otherwise. Document Quality A handful of vendors have worked on this and may be implementing it. 2 members of the WG have done a careful review, and a YANG doctor early review was also done. Personnel Stig Venaas is the shepherd, Alvaro Retana is the 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 reviewed the document carefully twice. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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, except another YANG doctor review would be good. (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. Yes, each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR, and no one else in the WG has mentioned any IPR. Also the contributors have stated that they are not aware of any IPR. The WG was accidentally not copied when initially checking IPRs. The responses the authors were summarized and posted in email https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/7LBfuQAownskNm6jbX2LrgPpeq4 The 3 contributors responded, their responses were on the list in these emails: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/3Arxn0ynwtA0xHL2v3htqJjlkHc https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/fdIBYfHE7Q1_NOOdzhvw8siTtEc https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Pr_1Dt4N0iecqRYdKJJglJmE_VE (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No 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? At least 8 people are in support (6 of them authors), none are against. Wide range of vendors involved. While we would have liked more people to review it, it is hard to get much responses to YANG models. (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. A few nits found by the tool, nothing major. Not aware of other nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The early YANG doctor review only found minor issues, which should be addressed in version 06. (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 are 2 normative references to YANG related documents. These will hopefully be published soon. (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 are downward references to the MSDP protocol itself and the MSDP MIB. We still believe this document should be on the standards track though. (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). The IANA considerations are clear and they are inline with other YANG models. (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 new registries. (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. No errors, but 2 warnings found by YANG validation tool. |
2019-10-23
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/7hw97FXdh6oRKcDKOktjEvp0vnU |
2019-10-23
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-09-13
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-zhang-pim-msdp-yang instead of None |
2019-09-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-09-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> |
2019-08-12
|
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 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? Standards track. The YANG model is for a widely deployed protocol. While the protocol is experimental, the model itself is not an experiment. (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 for the configuration and management of the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Protocol. Working Group Summary The WG has a YANG model design team. 6 member of the team (from a handful of vendors) have worked on this. It is based on implementations from these and other vendors. This indicates good vendor support. Aside from this, only 2 people supported the document for the WGLC, but none have raised any issues during the WGLC or in the WG otherwise. Document Quality A handful of vendors have worked on this and may be implementing it. 2 members of the WG have done a careful review, and a YANG doctor early review was also done. Personnel Stig Venaas is the shepherd, Alvaro Retana is the 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 reviewed the document carefully twice. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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, except another YANG doctor review would be good. (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. Yes, each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR, and no one else in the WG has mentioned 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 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? At least 8 people are in support (6 of them authors), none are against. Wide range of vendors involved. While we would have liked more people to review it, it is hard to get much responses to YANG models. (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. A few nits found by the tool, nothing major. Not aware of other nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The early YANG doctor review only found minor issues, which should be addressed in version 06. (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 are 2 normative references to YANG related documents. These will hopefully be published soon. (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 are downward references to the MSDP protocol itself and the MSDP MIB. We still believe this document should be on the standards track though. (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). The IANA considerations are clear and they are inline with other YANG models. (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 new registries. (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. No errors, but 2 warnings found by YANG validation tool. |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-08-12
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-08-12
|
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 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? Standards track. The YANG model is for a widely deployed protocol. While the protocol is experimental, the model itself is not an experiment. (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 for the configuration and management of the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Protocol. Working Group Summary The WG has a YANG model design team. 6 member of the team (from a handful of vendors) have worked on this. It is based on implementations from these and other vendors. This indicates good vendor support. Aside from this, only 2 people supported the document for the WGLC, but none have raised any issues during the WGLC or in the WG otherwise. Document Quality A handful of vendors have worked on this and may be implementing it. 2 members of the WG have done a careful review, and a YANG doctor early review was also done. Personnel Stig Venaas is the shepherd, Alvaro Retana is the 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 reviewed the document carefully twice. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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, except another YANG doctor review would be good. (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. Yes, each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR, and no one else in the WG has mentioned 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 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? At least 8 people are in support (6 of them authors), none are against. Wide range of vendors involved. While we would have liked more people to review it, it is hard to get much responses to YANG models. (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. A few nits found by the tool, nothing major. Not aware of other nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The early YANG doctor review only found minor issues, which should be addressed in version 06. (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 are 2 normative references to YANG related documents. These will hopefully be published soon. (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 are downward references to the MSDP protocol itself and the MSDP MIB. We still believe this document should be on the standards track though. (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). The IANA considerations are clear and they are inline with other YANG models. (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 new registries. (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. No errors, but 2 warnings found by YANG validation tool. |
2019-05-08
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> |
2019-05-08
|
06 | Stig Venaas | Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas |
2019-04-23
|
06 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-06.txt |
2019-04-23
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-23
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar , "Zheng\(Sandy\) Zhang" |
2019-04-23
|
06 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-15
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-10-12
|
05 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-05.txt |
2018-10-12
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-12
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar , "Zheng\(Sandy\) Zhang" |
2018-10-12
|
05 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-15
|
04 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-04.txt |
2018-08-15
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-15
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , pim-chairs@ietf.org, Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , pim-chairs@ietf.org, Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2018-08-15
|
04 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-11
|
03 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-03.txt |
2018-04-11
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-11
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Feng Guo , Xufeng Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Feng Guo , Xufeng Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2018-04-11
|
03 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-12
|
02 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-02.txt |
2018-02-12
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-12
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Feng Guo , Xufeng Liu , Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2018-02-12
|
02 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-12
|
01 | Reshad Rahman | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-18
|
01 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2017-12-18
|
01 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman |
2017-11-22
|
01 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Thomas Nadeau |
2017-11-22
|
01 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Thomas Nadeau |
2017-11-22
|
01 | Mehmet Ersue | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
2017-09-05
|
01 | Xufeng Liu | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-01.txt |
2017-09-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Feng Guo , Pete McAllister , Zheng Zhang , Mahesh Sivakumar |
2017-09-05
|
01 | Xufeng Liu | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-02
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-03-01
|
00 | Zheng Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang-00.txt |
2017-03-01
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-03-01
|
00 | Zheng Zhang | Set submitter to "Zheng Zhang ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pim-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-03-01
|
00 | Zheng Zhang | Uploaded new revision |