A YANG Data Model for Virtual Network (VN) Operations
draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-29

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang and RFC 9731, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. The domain is quite complex and renders the model also complex...

Just a minor regret: the examples are only with IPv4 addresses...

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27

Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots.

Many thanks for the RTG-DIR reviews from Darren Dukes and many thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the Shepherd write-up.

Please find below historical ABSTAIN AD review comments with information how the document editor team quickly worked to resolve these abstain observations.

#ABSTAIN items
#=============
##(resolved) ABSTAIN1
One of the motivations to use YANG is to have human readable structure to understand config and state of a device.
When looking through the document i see many very abbreviated acronyms. e.g. vn, vn-id, src, src-vn-ap.id, etc

##[Resolution] Agreed with Dhruv (author): abbreviations will be expanded upon in descriptions as the abbreviations used are well known in TEAS area.

##[resolved] ABSTAIN2
Using full/fragments of parent-node names in sibling-node names is something that netmod has recommendations against.
Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3.1

##[Resolution] Authors updated the model to align with netmod recommendations

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27

Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots.

Many thanks for the RTG-DIR reviews from Darren Dukes and many thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the Shepherd write-up.

Please find below one non-blocking ABSTAIN regarding the YANG node names used. While this should be relatively straightforward to address, it will involve quite a bit of effort to correct the node names throughout all instances.

#ABSTAIN items
#=============
##(resolved) ABSTAIN1
One of the motivations to use YANG is to have human readable structure to understand config and state of a device.
When looking through the document i see many very abbreviated acronyms. e.g. vn, vn-id, src, src-vn-ap.id, etc

##[Resolution] Agreed with Dhruv (author): abbreviations will be expanded upon in descriptions as the abbreviations used are well known in TEAS area.

##[resolved] ABSTAIN2
Using full/fragments of parent-node names in sibling-node names is something that netmod has recommendations against.
Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3.1

##[Resolution] Authors updated the model to align with netmod recommendations

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27

Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots.

Many thanks for the RTG-DIR reviews from Darren Dukes and many thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the Shepherd write-up.

Please find below one non-blocking ABSTAIN regarding the YANG node names used. While this should be relatively straightforward to address, it will involve quite a bit of effort to correct the node names throughout all instances.

#ABSTAIN items
#=============
##(resolved) ABSTAIN1
One of the motivations to use YANG is to have human readable structure to understand config and state of a device.
When looking through the document i see many very abbreviated acronyms. e.g. vn, vn-id, src, src-vn-ap.id, etc

Agreed with Dhruv (author): abbreviations will be expanded upon in descriptions as the abbreviations used are well known in TEAS area.

##ABSTAIN2
Using full/fragments of parent-node names in sibling-node names is something that netmod has recommendations against.
 
Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3.1

“
  Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or well-known acronyms
  or abbreviations.  Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT
  replicate the parent identifier.  YANG identifiers are hierarchical
  and are only meant to be unique within the the set of sibling nodes
  defined in the same module namespace.

  It is permissible to use common identifiers such as "name" or "id" in
  data definition statements, especially if these data nodes share a
  common data type.
“

Note: Originally these were blocking DISCUSS, however using non-recommended yang node names, is not one of the agreed reasons to have a discuss 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-discuss-criteria-in-iesg-review-20140507/

The yang tree documented can be implemented and will interop. Hence i moved the original blocking DISCUSS to a non-blocking ABSTAIN position with following meaning:
"I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others."

[Ballot discuss]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27

Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ documenting the handling of ballots.

Many thanks for the RTG-DIR reviews from Darren Dukes and many thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the Shepherd write-up.

Please find below 1 blocking DISCUSS about the yang node names used, that seems reasonably simple to address

#DISCUSS items
#=============
##DISCUSS1
One of the motivations to use YANG is to have human readable structure to understand config and state of a device.
When looking through the document i see many very abbreviated acronymns. e.g. vn, vn-id, src, src-vn-ap.id, etc

If not overly lengthy, why not use node names in the style of source, virtual-network, virtual-network-id, etc? There is no real reason to abbreviate in the yang model, assuming the node names are not overly long and it makes reading and understanding the leafs more trivial.

[Ballot comment]
I have removed my discuss on this draft.  I do think that the standard template for these documents should be updated as the language doesn't match/model/resemble other Security Consideration sections.

Thanks for the consideration (and education).

Nit:  Section 1, para 6:  MSDC should be MDSC.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1, paragraph 11
>    The VN operational state is included in the same tree as the
>    configuration consistent with Network Management Datastore
>    Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].  The origin of the data is indicated
>    as per the origin metadata annotation.


The last statement is not clear to me. What "data" is being referred to? What is "origin metadata annotation"?

Section 1.1, paragraph 1
>    Refer to [RFC8453], [RFC7926], and [RFC8309] for the key terms used
>    in this document.


I support Francesca's comment here. In addition, I expect the document to highlight which key terms in this document are being "imported" from the other documents. More than that, what would be helpful would be have a table that contains a list of acronyms used in the document.

Section 4.3.3, paragraph 3
>    Note that the YANG model is tightly coupled with the TE Topology
>    model [RFC8795].  Any underlay technology not supported by [RFC8795]
>    is also not supported by this model.  The model does include an empty
>    container called "underlay" that can be augmented.  For example the
>    SR-policy information can be augmented for the SR underlay by a
>    future model.


Based on the first sentence, it is clear that this is not a generic Virtual Network YANG model. Why then call it that? Why not call it a TE Virtual Network YANG model, and leave room for someone to define a generic VN model?

Section 6, paragraph 30
>      grouping vn-ap {

I see a single uses statement for this grouping. Is this grouping expected to be used by other modules? If not, why not inline the grouping where it is being used?

Section 6, paragraph 30
>      grouping access-point {

Similar comment here. I see a single uses statement for this grouping. If this grouping is not expected to be used by other modules, why not inline the grouping where it is being used?

Section 6, paragraph 30
>          leaf multi-src {
>            if-feature "multi-src-dest";
>            type boolean;
>            default "false";
>            description
>              "Is the source part of multi-source, where
>              only one of the source is enabled";
>          }


Is there no requirement to know what are the other sources? As structured, if this boolean is true, only one source can be stored as part of the module. Which of the multiple 'src' will be stored in 'leaf src'? In other words should 'container src' not contain a 'list src' with 'src', 'src-vn-ap-id' as members of the list?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 1, paragraph 10
>  that, what would be helpful would be have a table that contains a list of ac
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Consider using only "have" or the present participle "be having".

Section 1.3, paragraph 4
> inks, intra-domain | paths, and inter- domain links. If we were to create a V
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or
removing the hyphen completely.

Section 2.1, paragraph 7
> ogies (a single node topology AN1 and a underlay topology (with nodes S1 to S
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 3.2, paragraph 12
>  in the [RFC8454]. It also allows to group the set of edge-to-edge links (i.e
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
Did you mean "grouping"? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice,
"allow" + "to" takes an object, usually a pronoun.

Section 4.3.1, paragraph 2
> y is used to convey the result of the each VN member as a reference to the c
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
Two determiners in a row. Choose either "the" or "each".

Section 4.3.1, paragraph 15
> set by customer, making for a simplified operations for the customer. - VN Ty
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The plural noun "operations" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean
"a simplified operation" or "simplified operations"?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Only one comment on my side: given that RFC 7926, 8309 and 8453 key terms are used, they should be normative references of this doc. In particular RFC 8453, which I was surprised to see as informative. The other two might be bypassed by reporting the must-understand concepts into this document directly.

Note to the IESG: if these ref are moved to normative (as they should) 2/3 are informational and were not Last Called.

[Ballot discuss]
I don't know much about Yang, but...

Section 7:  While this section appears to be modeled after RFC8341, it doesn't actually help the implementer avoid security pitfalls.  Wording like 'are designed to be accessed' or 'provides the means to restrict', don't imply what SHOULD be done to prevent unwanted situations. 

My suggestion is to reference RFC8341 directly by saying that the security considerations listed there apply to this RFC.  I would also add that Security Considerations in RFC6242 and RFC8446 also apply in the same way.

Please update the remaining paragraphs to state what can be done to avoid whatever situation is being identified.

I'm happy to help with the rewrite, if that is needed.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-25. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA 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 group located at:

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-vn
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vn
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 have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

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.

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Virtual Network (VN) Operations) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model
for Virtual Network (VN) Operations'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-30. 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


  A Virtual Network (VN) is a network provided by a service provider to
  a customer for the customer to use in any way it wants.  This
  document provides a YANG data model generally applicable to any mode
  of VN operations.  This includes VN operations as per Abstraction and
  Control of TE Networks (ACTN) framework.




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


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4215/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. 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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
   (where)?

This document provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network (VN) operations. 
The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven 
by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

The data model provided in this document can work together with service models 
discussed in other WGs (OPSAWG, CCAMP). However, there isn't enough in-depth 
detail or dependency on any of these models to warrant a review from these other WGs.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2020-12-20/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, the current version of the YANG module has been checked with recommended
validation tools. Please refer to the YANG validation results on datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/

There are currently 0 errors and 2 warnings listed against the YANG module.
The 2 yanglint warnings are specific to an imported module (ietf-te-types) and
are not pertinent to this document.

The YANG module complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture 
(NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342]


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The YANG code in the document has been validated using prescribed YANG review
Tools. The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. 

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    Reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Standards Track". This is appropriate
for a document that provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network Operations. 
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There is an IPR disclosure associated with this
document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4215/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-07-04 and 2023-07-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2018-05-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The allocation requests made to the IANA in this document are appropriate
and the referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. There are no new 
IANA registries proposed in this document.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries proposed in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. 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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
   (where)?

This document provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network (VN) operations. 
The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven 
by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

The data model provided in this document can work together with service models 
discussed in other WGs (OPSAWG, CCAMP). However, there isn't enough in-depth 
detail or dependency on any of these models to warrant a review from these other WGs.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2020-12-20/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, the current version of the YANG module has been checked with recommended
validation tools. Please refer to the YANG validation results on datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/

There are currently 0 errors and 2 warnings listed against the YANG module.
The 2 yanglint warnings are specific to an imported module (ietf-te-types) and
are not pertinent to this document.

The YANG module complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture 
(NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342]


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The YANG code in the document has been validated using prescribed YANG review
Tools. The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. 

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    Reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Standards Track". This is appropriate
for a document that provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network Operations. 
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There is an IPR disclosure associated with this
document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4215/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-07-04 and 2023-07-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2018-05-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The allocation requests made to the IANA in this document are appropriate
and the referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. There are no new 
IANA registries proposed in this document.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries proposed in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Pre WGLC IPR Poll:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/8Ow7krt9phKP5BcjoGEcy7DU_fQ/

Responses:

younglee.tx@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/crkPYMZVAGxftKnn0TIQPIIOmV0/

Dhruv Dhody
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-rTWPvBvPgmNS9gkX9J3vNBR98Q/

daniele.ietf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/J9qr59t0X2pUHRF6RXKpMuUMCgU/

Qin Wu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/vPn_bj1Uu-d4TuBhCpgM9Uraw_o/

peter.park@kt.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/qPO2fi8kjlgxAeGBGKSnRKMxnvE/

"Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/KE0-S0zzK2nGDIm7249mJTTuDmQ/

"Zhangxian (Xian)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Jz4tbCwyWNYNRpl-0Erqth8ZQrY/

"Ogaki, Kenichi"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JvA7v75S4fkQfPxxyuWVqb8zezM/


Missing Responses:

Igor Bryskin

byyun@etri.re.kr

"Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)"

ta-miyasaka@kddi.com

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu