A YANG Data Model for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-11

[Ballot comment]
Looking at the YANG modules dependencies. See https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-rip@2018-01-09.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=dependencies

I would appreciate an update from the RTG ADs on these 3 normative references:

  [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang]
              Rahman, R., Zheng, L., Jethanandani, M., Networks, J., and
              G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
              Detection (BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07 (work in
              progress), October 2017.

  [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
              Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, Z., and L.
              Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS protocol", draft-ietf-
              isis-yang-isis-cfg-19 (work in progress), November 2017.

  [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
              Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
              "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-ietf-ospf-
              yang-09 (work in progress), October 2017.

Any risk that the content will change and impact the YANG module in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip? All other YANG module dependencies are either on this telechat or the next one (RFC8022bis).

[Ballot comment]
OPS DIR review from Tina:

I found this document well written to be READY for publication as an informational document.

Some nits:

4.2 eBGP Labeled Unicast (RFC8277)

Each node peers with its neighbors via a eBGP session

should be

Each node peers with its neighbors via an eBGP session


7.  Addressing the open problems

the same could be re-used in context of
  other domains as well

A period is missing in the end.

Are the centralized controller and centralized agent the same components?

Even though the design in this document is specified for same domain, it would be useful to develop an approach for inter-domain without leaking intra-domain topology and policy.

Have this feature been included or being aligned with carrier grade FIB in FD.io VPP https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP ?

[Ballot comment]
I have a few minor comments.

In the YANG module, I find this definition:

              leaf address {
                type inet:ip-prefix;
                description
                  "IPv4 address, in the form A.B.C.D, and the prefix
                    length, separated by the slash (/) character;
                    or IPv6 address, in the form A:B:C:D:E:F:G:H, and
                    the prefix length, separated by the slash (/)
                    character.";
              }

The description -- which clearly says that IPv6 addresses need to be represented as eight discreet components -- implies that the use of :: (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.1) and embedded IPv4 addresses (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-5) is forbidden. This seems to be a restriction above and beyond that defined for ipv6-prefix in RFC 6991. Since I don't find any explanation of this in the accompanying text, I suspect this is an error. I think you want to cite RFC 5952 rather than trying to to describe the various valid formats for IPv6 addresses here.

____

I believe you want to update the copyright date that appears at the top of the YANG module definition.

____

Please consider updating the example in appendix A to conform to the IAB guidance found at . This would involve changing the example to use IPv6 instead of IPv4, or adding an IPv6 example in addition to the IPv4 example.

[Ballot comment]
Balloting No Objection ("I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem.") - ran out of time to review.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  The current template for the security consideration section was not used, could you please update the draft?  I believe this is the current working version:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-10#page-52

If there is a reason for not elaborating on data nodes per the template (too many rw, etc.) a summary would be helpful.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-06. 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 of the IETF XML Registry located at

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

a single new registration is to be made:

ID: yang:ietf-rip
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rip
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 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 Modules is to be registered:

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

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

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

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

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Yingzhen Qu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip@ietf.org, yingzhen.qu@huawei.com, rtgwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Routing
Information Protocol (RIP)'
  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 2017-12-12. 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 describes a data model for the Routing Information
  Protocol (RIP).  Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are covered.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip/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-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores: Network Management Datastore Architecture (None - IETF stream)
    draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA Version) (None - )
    draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis: A YANG Data Model for IP Management (None - IETF stream)
    draft-ietf-ospf-yang: Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol (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 Routing Information Protocol (RIP) YANG data model.

(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 Routing Information Protocol (RIP), and both RIP version 2 and RIPng are covered.
RIP was designed to work as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) in moderate-size Autonomous Systems (AS). The protocol has been implemented by most of network equipment vendors.  Providing a standard YANG model will facilitate the protocol configuration and status in a vendor independent way.

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 to many rounds of reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good.
A subset of the proposed model has been implemented.

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 nits in review comments have been addressed.

(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 has been reviewed by YANG-Doctors, all the comments received have been properly addressed.