YANG Data Model for Network Instances
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-12

[Ballot comment]
Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise
The title should be: "YANG module for network instance"

This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract.

No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in:

  The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in
  [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as:


Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example.

================================================================
Some more feedback from Martin Bjorklund, as YANG doctor:

In 3.1 they have:


  The network-instance module is structured to facilitate the
  definition of information models for specific types
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This should probably be "data models"

--------------------------------

In 3.1 they show the pre-NMDA split tree:

    augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" {
      case l3vpn {
        container l3vpn {
            ...
        }
        container l3vpn-state {
            ...
        }
      }
    }


this should be just:

    augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" {
      case l3vpn {
        container l3vpn {
            ...
        }
      }
    }


--------------------------------


same in 3.1.2:

          +--rw (ni-type)?
          |  +--:(l3vpn)
          |    +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn
          |    |  ... // config data
          |    +--ro l3vpn:l3vpn-state
          |    |  ... // state data

should be

          +--rw (ni-type)?
          |  +--:(l3vpn)
          |    +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn
          |    |  ...

-------------------

The example in appendix B.2 uses "ietf-routing:routing-state" and
"ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state" but that node is pre-NMDA, and
deprecated in 8022bis and 7022bis.  This example should probably be
updated.

[Ballot comment]
All of the examples in §B.1 use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update these to use all-IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See  for details.

[Ballot comment]
Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise
The title should be: "YANG module for network instance"

This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract.

No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in:

  The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in
  [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as:


Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example.

[Ballot comment]
Two minor editorial comments:

1) Sec 1.2: I'm surprised to see an open issue listed here. Is there already any plan to address this somehow or is that listed to inform the reader, however, in the second case I would probably rather call it 'limitation' or something like this...

2) Sec 2: "In this document, we consider network devices that support protocols
  and functions defined within the IETF Routing Area, e.g, routers,
  firewalls, and hosts. "
I assume that this yang module can also be used for routing protocols and functions that have not been defined in the IETF?

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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-network-instance
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-network-instance
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-network-instance
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-network-instance
Prefix: ni
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, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Network Instances) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Network Instances'
  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 network instance module.  This module can be
  used to manage the virtual resource partitioning that may be present
  on a network device.  Examples of common industry terms for virtual
  resource partitioning are Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF)
  instances and Virtual Switch Instances (VSIs).




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/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-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams: YANG Tree Diagrams (None - IETF stream)

(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 Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs.

(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 Network Instances (NIs).
The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs).  VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs.

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.
A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?)

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 (version-02) 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.

Comments and nits have been addressed in the version -06.

(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 (version-02) 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 (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 Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs.

(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 Network Instances (NIs).
The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs).  VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs.

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.
A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?)

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 (version-02) 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:
idnits 2.15.00

/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt:
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(542): Line has weird spacing: '...address  yang:...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(630): Possible code comment in line:                  "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']".
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(766): Possible code comment in line:    /if:interfaces/if:interface/*/bind-network-instance-name:  This leaf.
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(808): Code start at 808:    file "ietf-network-instance@2017-12-04.yang".
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(1134): Code end at 1134:    .
/tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(1710): Possible code comment in line:                  "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']".


  Showing Errors (**), Flaws (~~), Warnings (==), and Comments (--).
  Errors MUST be fixed before draft submission.  Flaws SHOULD be fixed before draft submission.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Running in submission checking mode -- *not* checking nits according to
  https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist .
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    No nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG Doctors review (version-02) 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 (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 Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs.

(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 Network Instances (NIs).
The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs).  VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs.

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.
A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?)

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 (version-02) 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:
  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (September 26, 2017) is 41 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.


  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 (-07) exists of
    draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-06

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
    draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-01

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
    draft-ietf-ospf-yang-08

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


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

(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 (version-02) 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 (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.