As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
Intended status: Standards Track (Indicated on title page)
This document defines the YANG module for the configuration and
management of DS-Lite (RFC6333 - also standards track).
(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:
This document defines a YANG module for the configuration and management
of DSLite (RFC6333) devices. The document covers the AFTR (softwire tunnel
concentrator) and the B4 (tunnel initiating client normally located in the
home network). In the DSLite architecture, the AFTR functions as a NAT
gateway in addition to a tunnel concentrator.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
There is consensus in the WG for the publication of this
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
No current implementations known.
Version 06 of the draft has been through the early YANG doctor
review process. All comments received have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the assigned YANG doctor (Mahesh Jethanandani).
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Ian Farrer (Softwire co-chair), is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson is the Responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
The document has been reviewed by the Document Shepherd for technical
content, completeness and language. All raised comments have been resolved.
The document is well written and ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
The document contains a new YANG module specification. This has
been through the early YANG doctor's review process.
(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
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR issues have been filed.
(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?
WG consensus is achieved and all of the active
participants agree on the advancement of this document.
(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.)
(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
These are related to the IP addresses 192.0.0.1 and 192.0.0.0, which are
well-known IP address reserved for DSLite defined in section 5.7 of RFC6333.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The draft has been through the (informal) early YANG doctor's review process
and all comments have been resolved.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
This document contains a normative reference to draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang,
which describes a YANG model for network address translation (one of
the component functions of a DS-Lite AFTR).
The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang have been through the YANG
doctor's early review process and addressed comments received.
The draft completed WGLC in OPSAWG on 9th January 2018 and has had
a Genarts review with a result of 'ready'.
(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.
(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.
(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).
The document request new IANA registrations for ieft-dslite in both the
existing 'IETF XML' and 'YANG Module Names' registries.
This is consistent with the new module that the document defines. Both
registries are identified by name and their reference RFC numbers. The
contents of the new registrations are given in full.
(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.
(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 YANG modules in the draft have both been checked and compile successfully
without warnings using the 'pyang' tool.