YANG Model for Logical Network Elements
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-10

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8530, changed abstract to 'This document defines a logical network element (LNE) YANG module that is compliant with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).  This module can be used to manage the logical resource partitioning that may be present on a network device.  Examples of common industry terms for logical resource partitioning are logical systems or logical routers.  The YANG model in this document conforms with NMDA as defined in RFC 8342.', changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2019-03-06, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

Please add

RFC Editor Note:

Please update first sentence of Abstract from:

"This document defines a logical network element YANG module."
to:
This document defines a logical network element NMDA-compliant YANG module."

and the first line of the Introduction from:

"This document defines a YANG [RFC6020] module to support the creation
  of logical network elements on a network device. "
to:
"This document defines an NMDA-compliant YANG [RFC6020] module to support the creation
  of logical network elements on a network device. "

This is to make sure the point is captured.  Authors & RFC Editor are welcome to improve the
text or change how the point is made.

[Ballot comment]
As several others have noted, the major concerns below from the Gen-ART reviewer need to be addressed:

Section 4 listed three data nodes that are sensitive or vulnerable:
  -  /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element
  -  /logical-network-elements/logical-network-element/managed
  -  /if:interfaces/if:interface/bind-lne-name

All three of them deserve a bit more discussion, although the middle
one is covered in much more detail than the other two.  If a bad actor
gets "unauthorized access" is there something more specific about each
of these that can be said?  The characterization of "network
malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate destinations, and
other problems" seems very broad.  Consequences that are specific to
these data nodes would be more helpful to the reader.

[Ballot comment]
All of the examples in Appendix B and its subsections use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update these to use all-IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See  for details.

[Ballot comment]
Russ's Gen-ART review included comments about the "vulnerable parameters" in the security considerations section in version 5. Version 6 does not seem to address those comments, nor do I see any response in email. If the authors do not intend to add the requested information, it would be good to at least say so (and hopefully explain why) via email.

[Ballot comment]
Please make sure you review Dan's OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05-opsdir-lc-romascanu-2018-01-25/) -- he has some great suggestions to further improve the document

I also have a few *very* minor nits:
Section 2: Overview
"The logical-network-element module augments existing
  interface management model by adding an"
Perhaps "management models" (plural)?

Section 3.1.  LNE Instantiation and Resource Assignment
"When an bind-lne-name is set to a valid
  LNE name, an implementation "
Perhaps "When a ..." ?

[Ballot comment]
No objection to the document, but a few points must addressed.

- I agree with Alvaro's point: the example should be corrected.
- This draft is NMDA compliant: it should be mentioned.

From Dan Romascanu's OPS DIR, at least the 3 first three points should be addressed (the 4rth one is a nice to have, but a bigger task IMO):

This is a very useful, well thought and well written document, which reflects
work and discussions within the RTG and OPS areas. From an operational point of
view it's a very useful tool in support of network operators that will manage
and configure logical elements. I believe that the document is almost ready,
but there are a number of issues that are worth being discussed and addressed
before approval by the IESG.

1. The name and scope of the document as presented in the title and Abstract
are not exactly reflecting the content. LNEs are not YANG LNEs as the title
says, and the type of module (a YANG module) being defined is not stated in the
Abstract. I would suggest that the document actually defines 'A Data Model and
YANG Module for Logical Network Elements'.

2. There is no reference and relationship definition in the document to the
YANG Data Model for Hardware Management defined in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07. Actually the LNEs are
almost similar with the 'logical entities' that were dropped from the
netmod-entity work. It is expected that in the future network operators will
use both data models and the respective YANG modules when managing hardware
devices on which logical network entities are being run. Even if this
relationship is not explicitly present in the DM, I believe that it needs to be
looked at and mentioned in the document.

3. In Section 2 I see:

'The logical-network-element module augments existing
  interface management model by adding an identifier which is used on
  physical interface types to identify an associated LNE.'

I am wondering why the mentioning of 'physical interface types' here. What if
the interface type in not 'physical' representing a protocol layer or sublayer
on the device? After all, if all interfaces to be considered were 'physical' we
could have augmented the entity hardware module rather than the interfaces
module, as all physical interfaces are represented there as well.

4. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to be written for the benefit and the perspective
of the implementations writers rather than of the operators. Are there any
hints, advice, or indications for the operators using the module to manage
their LNEs? These could be described also in the examples appendices, which are
otherwise very useful to illustrate and explain the models.

[Ballot comment]
This document references/augments rfc7223.  It should reference rfc7223bis instead.  The examples in Appendix B still show the interfaces-state subtree, but the main text doesn't.  Are there any other changes in rfc7223bis that would impact this document?

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05. 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 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-logical-network-element
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-logical-network-element
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. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. 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-logical-network-element
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-logical-network-element
Prefix: lne
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entry for the registry value "Maintained by IANA?" for this new YANG module?

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


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-31):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Yingzhen Qu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, rtgwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Logical Network Elements) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Logical Network Elements'
  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 2018-01-31. 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 logical network element module.  This module
  can be used to manage the logical resource partitioning that may be
  present on a network device.  Examples of common industry terms for
  logical resource partitioning are Logical Systems or Logical Routers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. 
The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.
This document describes the Logical Network Element (LNE) YANG data model: creation of logical network elements on a network device, and allocating host resources to a given LNE.

(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 describes a YANG data model for Logical Network Elements (LNEs).
A network device may divide its resources into logical network elements (LNEs), each of which provides a managed logical device. The module defined in this document is used to support multiple LNEs on a single physical or virtual system, create LNEs and allocate host resource to a given LNE.

Working Group Summary
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG.
The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.
All comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.

Document Quality
The draft went through initial reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good.
The proposed model has at least one known implementation.

Personnel
Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.

(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.
The draft has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors.

(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.
  N/A

(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.  Every author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes.  The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR at every step of the process.  There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.

(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? 
The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.
The document -05 version has addressed the nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG Doctors review comments have been addressed.

(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?
No.

(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.

(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.
The state of other documents remains unchanged.

(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).
This draft registers a URI in the IETF XML registry and a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry.

(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.
N/A

(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.
The draft (version-02) has been reviewed by YANG-Doctors, all the comments received have been properly addressed.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. 
The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.
This document describes the Logical Network Element (LNE) YANG data model: creation of logical network elements on a network device, and allocating host resources to a given LNE.

(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 describes a YANG data model for Logical Network Elements (LNEs).
A network device may divide its resources into logical network elements (LNEs), each of which provides a managed logical device. The module defined in this document is used to support multiple LNEs on a single physical or virtual system, create LNEs and allocate host resource to a given LNE.

Working Group Summary
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG.
The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.
All major comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.
Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document.

Document Quality
The draft went through initial reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good.
The proposed model has at least one known implementation.

Personnel
Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document.

(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.
The draft has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors.

(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.
  N/A

(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.  Every author has confirmed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
Yes.  The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR at every step of the process.  There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.

(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? 
The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.
There are still some editorial comments that need to be addressed.
From idnits:
  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
    draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-06

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-01

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-03


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG Doctors review comments have been addressed.

(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?
No.

(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.

(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.
The state of other documents remains unchanged.

(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).
This draft registers a URI in the IETF XML registry and a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry.

(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.
N/A

(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.
The draft (version-02) has been reviewed by YANG-Doctors, all the comments received have been properly addressed.