YANG Data Model for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
draft-ietf-pim-yang-17

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar

[Ballot comment]
[removed the entries taken care of in version 13]

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What is the status?


    import ietf-bfd-types {
      prefix "bfd-types";
    }

    grouping interface-config-attributes {
      description
        "A grouping defining interface attributes.";
      container bfd {
        if-feature bfd;
        description
          "BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) operation.";
        uses bfd-types:client-cfg-parms;
      }

From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07
  grouping client-cfg-parms {
    description
      "BFD grouping for config parameters
        used by clients of BFD, e.g. IGP or MPLS";

    leaf enable {
      type boolean;
      default false;
      description
        "Indicates whether the BFD is enabled.";
    }
    uses base-cfg-parms;
  }

From Jürgen Schönwälder:

I have reviewed this document both as ops-dir reviewer and as yang doctor. A
more detailed review has been submitted as part of the yang doctor review. Here
I am focusing on more general questions from an operational perspective.

- There are a number of parameters without defined defaults. Is the
  idea that every vendor augments in their defaults? Would it not
  overall be simpler if the PIM WG can find agreement on common
  defaults? (Vendors can still publish deviations I think.)

- I wonder how these YANG modules relate to the PIM MIB modules. Are
  for example counters the same or different? I think it would be good
  if the text would discuss relationship of the YANG modules relate to
  corresponding MIB modules.

-  There are no example configurations provided, demonstration how, for
  example, a simple PIM installation would be configured is not
  present in the document (e.g., as an appendix).

[Ballot comment]
This document has the most legible and thoroughly-cited acronym list I think I've ever seen. Thank you so much for taking the extra effort.

[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because, as Alvaro pointed out,  we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the question of what it means in general for a Yang module to be of higher maturity than the protocol it models still stands in the general case. I don't expect that to change for _this_ particular document. ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).

[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the question of what it means in general for a Yang module to be of higher maturity than the protocol it models still stands in the general case. I don't expect that to change for _this_ particular document. ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).

[Ballot comment]
- Yes, the security considerations section must be updated, as mentioned by Kathleen.
- For consistency reasons, you want a section such as
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-02#section-1.3
    or
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08#section-2.2
- section 1, first paragraph, mentions RESTCONF next to NETCONF
- If you update the draft, the following entry is now an RFC

  [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-routing-types]
              Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
              "Routing Area Common YANG Data Types", draft-ietf-rtgwg-
              routing-types-17 (work in progress), October 2017.

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What is the status?


    import ietf-bfd-types {
      prefix "bfd-types";
    }

    grouping interface-config-attributes {
      description
        "A grouping defining interface attributes.";
      container bfd {
        if-feature bfd;
        description
          "BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) operation.";
        uses bfd-types:client-cfg-parms;
      }

From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07
  grouping client-cfg-parms {
    description
      "BFD grouping for config parameters
        used by clients of BFD, e.g. IGP or MPLS";

    leaf enable {
      type boolean;
      default false;
      description
        "Indicates whether the BFD is enabled.";
    }
    uses base-cfg-parms;
  }

From Jürgen Schönwälder

I have reviewed this document both as ops-dir reviewer and as yang doctor. A
more detailed review has been submitted as part of the yang doctor review. Here
I am focusing on more general questions from an operational perspective.

- There are a number of parameters without defined defaults. Is the
  idea that every vendor augments in their defaults? Would it not
  overall be simpler if the PIM WG can find agreement on common
  defaults? (Vendors can still publish deviations I think.)

- I wonder how these YANG modules relate to the PIM MIB modules. Are
  for example counters the same or different? I think it would be good
  if the text would discuss relationship of the YANG modules relate to
  corresponding MIB modules.

-  There are no example configurations provided, demonstration how, for
  example, a simple PIM installation would be configured is not
  present in the document (e.g., as an appendix).

[Ballot discuss]
[This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, since I don't know the answer to my question. I expect to clear it after a little discussion. Likely at the first indication that one or another ADs hold the clue that I am missing :-)  ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).

[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be sure to list out the nodes in each of the sections if they are sensitive or security related (graceful restart could do some damage, etc.), that would resolve my discuss.  Here's a link to the template and I'm not sure if there is a later version posted somewhere.

There seems to be a number of rw in this draft (with some overlap between modules), is that why this step was left out?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-6.1

The update in this draft appears to be the current, but please correct me if I am wrong and there is a later template:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-10#page-52

Thanks!

[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be sure to list out the nodes in each of the sections if they are sensitive or security related (graceful restart could do some damage, etc.), that would resolve my discuss.  Here's a link to the template and I'm not sure if there is a later version posted somewhere.

There seems to be a number of rw in this draft (with some overlap between modules), is that why this step was left out?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-6.1

Thanks!

[Ballot comment]
I don't know what the convention is but this doc does not contain the section describing the tree diagram syntax that YANG docs usually have. Is the agreement to have that in all YANG docs or is it okay to omit it?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

five new registrations are to be made:

ID: yang:ietf-pim-base
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-bidir
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-dm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-rp
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-sm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document is 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/

five new YANG Modules are to be registered:

Name: ietf-pim-base
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Prefix: pim-base
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-bidir
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Prefix: pim-bidir
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-dm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Prefix: pim-dm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-rp
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Prefix: pim-rp
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-sm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Prefix: pim-sm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

IANA Question --> What should be the value for "Maintained by IANA?" for each of these new YANG modules?

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 only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG data model for Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)) 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
Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)'
  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 2017-12-22. 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 Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.  The model
  covers the PIM protocol configuration, operational state, and event
  notifications data.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-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:
    rfc3973: Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised) (Experimental - IETF stream)
    rfc3569: An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) (Informational - IETF stream)

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

five new registrations are to be made:

ID: yang:ietf-pim-base
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-bidir
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-dm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-rp
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-pim-sm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document is 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/

five new YANG Modules are to be registered:

Name: ietf-pim-base
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Prefix: pim-base
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-bidir
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Prefix: pim-bidir
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-dm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Prefix: pim-dm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-rp
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Prefix: pim-rp
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-sm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Prefix: pim-sm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

IANA Question --> What should be the value for "Maintained by IANA?" for each of these new YANG modules?

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 only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG data model for Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)) 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
Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)'
  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 2017-12-15. 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 Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.  The model
  covers the PIM protocol configuration, operational state, and event
  notifications data.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-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:
    draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management (None - IETF stream)
    draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA Version) (None - )

=== AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11 ===

Dear authors:

I just finished looking at this document.

There are a number of errors and warnings still being reported by the validator in the datatracker — because the YANG Doctors review is in progress, I’m assuming that those will get fixed before IESG Evaluation, so I’m starting the IETF Last Call.

The only significant concerns that I have are related to the use of Normative Language and the characterization of the references (please see below).

Thanks!!

Alvaro.



Major:

M1. rfc2119 Normative Language

M1.1. From 2.5: "For these implementations, the restriction that interface configuration must be address-family independent MAY either be expressed…”. I think that MAY is out of place because it is not really Normative, it is just explaining options that implementations may have because of lack of support.  s/MAY/may

M1.2. There are 2 instances of “MUST” embedded in descriptions (election-state:candidate:candidate-bsr-state:elected, and df-election-container:df-election:offer-multiplier).  I think these are out of place too as the text is not specifying anything, just describing the behavior.  s/MUST/must

M1.3. After these changes, you should be able to take out the boilerplate and references to rfc2119.


M2. References: I think the following references should be Normative: RFC3569, RFC3973, RFC4610, RFC4607, RFC5015, RFC5059, RFC7761 and I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.


Minor:

P1. I believe the following references can be Informative:  RFC6241, RFC6536


Nits:

N1. s/draft/document (when used in the text)

N2. In 2.5: s/This is similar to other protocol Yang models such as IS-IS./This is similar to other protocol Yang models.  Or maybe even take that sentence out.  There’s no reference to the IS-IS module — and in the end doing it “because others did it” may not be the best justification…the rest of this section provides justification.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar

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. We want this YANG model to be a 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
The document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.

Working Group Summary
A design team with members from more than 6 different vendors have been involved in designing this model. The authors were also working for 6 different vendors when most of the draft was written. There was not much review or feedback from non-authors in the WG, but given the design team and the number of vendors involved, we believe we have good support. All issues that was raised in the 2 working group last calls have been addressed.

Document Quality
Several vendors are planning to implement this. There are operators waiting for this to be ready. The model has also gone through YANG doctor review.

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 todraft-i
the IESG.
The shepherd has done a detailed review, and all comments addressed. However I just noticed that the abstract should also mention that it is an operational model or used for management. Not just configuration.

(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.
It is worth checking how the YANG model aligns with other models for interfaces, routing, BFD and also etf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. A YANG doctor has reviewed this, but some of these models may also have been updated recently.

(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.
My only concern is the alignment with other IETF YANG models as mentioned above.

(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, all authors have stated that they are not aware of any IPR claims.

(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? 
Given the number of people from at least 6 vendors agreeing on the model and no one raising issues I believe so. The draft has been presented at several meetings and discussed on the mailing list. And there has been thorough discussions in the design team.

(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.
There are some warning about weird spacing. Also it has 2119 boilerplate but no 2119 keywords. There are a couple of references missing in the reference section. Given that there is a draft submission deadline on in a few days I hope the document can still move forward and that this can be addressed as part of the IETF last call.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
It was reviewed by a YANG doctor.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are a couple of references in the text that are missing in the references section. I think these should be informative references, although one of them should possibly be normative.

(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?
Yes, there is a normative reference to draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. It may have to wait for this to complete before publication.

(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.
No, don't think so.

(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).

It needs addition to existing XML and YANG registries. I believe it is fine, but I'm a bit unfamiliar with what is expected for these registries.

(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.

It was found to compile with the IETF YANG tools. There were some warnings, but these are an issue with the tool, not with the draft.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Xufeng Liu" , "Mahesh Sivakumar" , "Anish Peter"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , "Mahesh Sivakumar"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , "Mahesh Sivakumar"