Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-24

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the discussion to address the major blocking points of my ballot:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tMTDQbdBdXHTOA6OAstCohlMXro/

I was about to ballot a non-blocking ABSTAIN because the title itself is still somehow ambiguous IMHO, but I fear that an ABSTAIN would block the document as the IESG has rotated since the first ballot, hence my NoObjection.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors for addressing my DISCUSS and most of my COMMENTS. I have noted two issues that I feel should be addressed, but I will let the AD decide how he wants to handle it.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review
.
I support the DISCUSS point of Mahesh Jethanandani, also identified by the GENART review, to clarify the relationship of this model to MPLS.

[Ballot discuss]
"Abstract", paragraph 0
>    This document defines a collection of common data types, identities,
>    and groupings in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common
>    data types, identities and groupings are intended to be imported by
>    other modules, e.g., those which model the Traffic Engineering (TE)
>    configuration and state capabilities.

I have to agree with Eric and Joel Halpern (BTW, thanks, Joel, for your GENART review) about the fact that most of these definitions are, if anything, technology-specific, and the draft needs to reflect that. It is not enough to say that the definitions in this draft "can be used by any module" and, by implication, with other technologies, unless those technologies are also covered comprehensively by this module. Certainly, the assertion that the module is technology agnostic needs to be scrutinized.

If the authors agree that the definitions are MPLS specific, I would not suggest renaming the module, as that is a much bigger change and will not play well with obsoleting RFC 8776. I would rather just update the description in the draft and in the YANG module to reflect that fact, and hope one day the module will be truly technology agnostic.

Section 4, paragraph 21
>          This revision obsoletes the following identities:
>          - of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption;
>          - of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link;
>          - of-minimize-cost-path-set;
>          - lsp-protection-reroute-extra;
>          - lsp-protection-reroute.

draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis in Section 4.7 says that:

The status SHOULD NOT be changed from "current" directly to "obsolete". An object SHOULD be available for at least one year after the publication date with a "deprecated" status before it is changed to "obsolete".

Yet, this document has clearly done exactly that. Was it not possible to deprecate the above identities, introduce the new identities, and a year later, obsolete the identities that were deprecated?

Section 6, paragraph 5
>    This document requests IANA to register the following YANG modules in
>    the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020][RFC9890] within the "YANG
>    Parameters" registry group.
>
>          name:      ietf-te-types
>          Maintained by IANA?  N
>          namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
>          prefix:    te-types
>          reference: RFC XXXX
>
>          name:      ietf-te-packet-types
>          Maintained by IANA?  N
>          namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
>          prefix:    te-packet-types
>          reference: RFC XXXX

Why is this registration request being made? Should the request not be for an update to refer to this document?

Section 7, paragraph 5
>    The YANG modules define a set of identities, types, and groupings.
>    These nodes are intended to be reused by other YANG modules.  The
>    modules by themselves do not expose any data nodes that are writable,
>    data nodes that contain read-only state, or RPCs.  As such, there are
>    no additional security issues related to the YANG module that need to
>    be considered.
>
>    Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document
>    should identify the corresponding security considerations.  For
>    example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-
>    topology-identifier' (which includes the 'client-id') groupings may
>    expose sensitive topology information.

If there are no security issues that need to be discussed here, why is the rest of the text needed? Just these paragraphs should suffice, no?

[Ballot comment]
Section 1.2, paragraph 1
>    +=================+======================+========================+
>    | Prefix          | YANG module          | Reference              |
>    +=================+======================+========================+
>    | yang            | ietf-yang-types      | Section 3 of [RFC6991] |
>    +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+
>    | inet            | ietf-inet-types      | Section 4 of [RFC6991] |
>    +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+
>    | rt-types        | ietf-routing-types  | [RFC8294]              |
>    +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+
>    | te-types        | ietf-te-types        | RFCXXXX                |
>    +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+
>    | te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | RFCXXXX                |
>    +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+

Please update all references to RFC6991 to point to RFC 9911.

Section 4, paragraph 14
>        All revisions of IETF and IANA published modules can be found
>        at the YANG Parameters registry group
>        (https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters).

Is this draft publishing an IANA module? If not, please remove reference to IANA modules.

Section 4, paragraph 34
>      identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason {
>        description
>          "Base identity for LSP provisioning errors.";
>      }

I do not see this base identity being used in this module or in this document. If this is intended to be used somewhere else or at a later time, it would be better to define it there or at that time.

Section 4, paragraph 358
>        leaf one-way-delay {
>          type uint32 {
>            range "0..16777215";
>          }
>          units "microseconds";
>          description
>            "One-way delay or latency.";
>        }

Is there a reference that can be cited for this? Or even an explanation for how it can be measured. Per MEF 10.3, "One-way delay is difficult to measure and therefore one-way delay may be approximated from two-way measurements."

Section 4, paragraph 357
>        leaf one-way-delay-normality {
>          type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
>          description
>            "One-way delay normality.";
>        }

This description and several like these are essentially a repeat of the name of the node without an explanation for what it is. Either an explanation or a reference is the minimum one should expect from these modules.

Section 4, paragraph 358
>        leaf two-way-delay {
>          type uint32 {
>            range "0..16777215";
>          }
>          units "microseconds";
>          description
>            "Two-way delay or latency.";
>        }

Same question here for reference.

Section 5, paragraph 0
>    The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types"
>    module defined in Section 4 of this document.

How about RFC 6991 or more precisely RFC 9911?

Section 5, paragraph 1
>      // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number
>      // assigned to this document.
>      // Please remove this note.

Can all these RFC Editor directives be consolidated in one place instead of scattering them across the document?

Section 5, paragraph 54
>      grouping bandwidth-profile-parameters {
>        description
>          "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles in packet
>          networks.";
>        leaf cir {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bits per second";
>          description
>            "Committed Information Rate (CIR).";
>        }
>        leaf cbs {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bytes";
>          description
>            "Committed Burst Size (CBS).";
>        }
>        leaf eir {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bits per second";
>          description
>            "Excess Information Rate (EIR).";
>        }
>        leaf ebs {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bytes";
>          description
>            "Excess Burst Size (EBS).";
>        }
>        leaf pir {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bits per second";
>          description
>            "Peak Information Rate (PIR).";
>        }
>        leaf pbs {
>          type uint64;
>          units "bytes";
>          description
>            "Peak Burst Size (PBS).";
>        }
>      }

Please cite the reference of MEF 10.3 for these parameters as suggested by Sergio Belotti. BTW, thanks, Sergio, for your OPSDIR review.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "he"; alternatives might be "they", "them", "their"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Reference [RFC6991] to RFC6991, which was obsoleted by RFC9911 (this may be on
purpose).

"I", paragraph 53
>  with the alternate route being pre-computed and stored for use when the fai
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("pre-compute" and "precompute") within a
single text.

"I", paragraph 196
> es a type representing the access type of a TE link."; reference "RFC 3630: T
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The
phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".).

"I", paragraph 210
> ition, and the user traffic is being transported (or selected) on the recove
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have used the passive voice repeatedly in nearby sentences. To make your
writing clearer and easier to read, consider using active voice.

"I", paragraph 333
>  address or dotted quad address or as an URI. The type data node disambiguate
>                                      ^^
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

"I", paragraph 397
> c-editor.org/rfc/rfc9522>. Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees This appendi
>                                      ^^
It seems like there are too many consecutive spaces here.

Section 8, paragraph 10
> ready defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'explicit-route-hop': -
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have used the passive voice repeatedly in nearby sentences. To make your
writing clearer and easier to read, consider using active voice.

Section 8, paragraph 11
> n replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: o node
>                                    ^^^^^^^^
Possible subject-verb agreement error detected.

Section 8, paragraph 12
> n replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: o node
>                                    ^^^^^^^^
Possible subject-verb agreement error detected.

Section 8, paragraph 14
> constraints; The following new leaf have been added to the 'tunnel-constraint
>                                    ^^^^
The verb form "have" does not seem to match the subject "leaf".

Section 8, paragraph 15
> jects-always; The container has been renamed as 'explicit-route-objects'. Thi
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have used the passive voice repeatedly in nearby sentences. To make your
writing clearer and easier to read, consider using active voice.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Tero Kivinen for their secdir review.  I agree with his assessment of the HUGE number of referenced RFCs. (16 references for 1 definition seems excessive)

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points, some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Oscar Gonzalez de Dios for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Title

While I understand that the TEAS WG is limited to MPLS technology, the title of this *IETF* draft is misleading as it it not `Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering` but more about `Common YANG Data Types for *MPLS-based* Traffic Engineering`.

This also applies to the module names as they should include "mpls" in the name as they are *specific* to MPLS and in no way `ietf-te-types`, or did I miss something?

Even if RFC 8776 had the some issue, this is not a reason for repeating the confusion.

More broadly, I find extremely sad that there is IETF-wide effort to have a real common data model across all TE control planes :-(

### Section 3.1

The leading text contains `TE types that are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance` but its subsection has terms that are very specific to MPLS-based control planes, e.g., `lsp-encoding-types`.

### Section 3.1.1

Missing text about when the SHOULD can be bypassed or what are the consequences of bypassing it in: `The derived identities SHOULD describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define` per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

### Section 3.1.2

What is `16-octet in full, mixed, shortened, or shortened-mixed IPv6 address notation` ? Why not simply requesting to use RFC 5952 ?

Same applies to `te-node-id` in section

### Section 4

It is unclear what is "hex float" in `where each of these numbers can be non-negative decimal, hex integer, or *hex float*` in the description of`te-bandwidth`.  There is a hint to `'bandwidth-ieee-float32'` but it should not be a hint.

[Ballot comment]
## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2

It would have been useful to also provide references to the terms beyond acronyms expansions.

### Section 3.1.1.1

Please expand or add a reference to "RWA" in `No RWA constraints met`

[Ballot comment]
Hi Italo, Aihua, Xufeng, Tarek, and Igor,

Thank you for the effort put into this bis and specifically the meticulous work to call out all changes and their rationale. The reasoning for not following some of the RFC8407 guidance are well-explained. Likewise, explanations about why an IANA-maintained module is not used for PCE errors are reasonable.

Thanks also to Sergio for the OPSDIR review. I trust the authors will follow-up.

I reviewed this document several times in the past, so I only have nits that I will submit as PR for the authors convenience. The NMDA mention inside the modules (and also in the document) is useless. The new guidance is to include a justification only when there is major deviation.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* For anyone else looking to review a diff, this URL was a helpful
  starting place:

    https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8776&url2=draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19&difftype=--html

[Ballot comment]
Hi Italo, Aihua, Xufeng, Tarek, and Igor,

Thank you for the effort put into this bis and specifically the meticulous work to call out all changes and their rationale. The reasoning for not following some of the RFC8407 guidance are well-explained. Likewise, explanations about why an IANA-maintained module is not used for PCE errors are reasonable.

Thanks also to Sergio for the OPSDIR review. I trust the authors will follow-up.

I reviewed this document several times in the past, so I only have nits that I submitted as PR for the authors convenience: https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/pull/323/files. The  NMDA mention inside the modules (and also in the document) is useless and such statement is useless. The new guidance is to include a justification only when there is major deviation.

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19. 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/

two existing namespaces will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-te-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-te-packet-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: ietf-te-packet-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Prefix: te-packet-types
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 2025-12-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, lberger@labn.net, oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Common YANG Data
Types for Traffic Engineering'
  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 2025-12-09. 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 collection of common data types, identities,
  and groupings in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common
  data types, identities and groupings are intended to be imported by
  other modules, e.g., those which model the Traffic Engineering (TE)
  configuration and state capabilities.

  This document obsoletes RFC 8776.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/



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

# 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" can be considered reasonable for this document.

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

The comments that were brought during the process were incorporated into the document with good consensus. I did not find controversy in any point. The modifications that were more complex were taken to the working group for discussion.

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 nor 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 updates an existing Yang model, documented in RFC 8776. The YANG model provides common data types , identities and groupings which are used in other yang models. The number of documents depending on this particular YANG model is high. Regarding the model itself, the document does not include an implementation report. It is expected that groupings specified in this document would be extensively used in the implementations of other Yang models.

## 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 provides common types/identities/groupings used by models defined in TEAS and CCAMP. Experts from both working groups have reviewed the document.

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-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

The routing directorate comments where addressed.

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-rfc8776-update/#
There are currently 0 errors and 0 warnings listed against the YANG module.

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 (in fact it is referenced by other documents that depend on this one), written with reasonable claritify, well structured and complete, 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 with building blocks reusable in serveral YANG data models.

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 document has gone through such a process.
Pre-WG adoption IPR poll. Please refer to entry 2022-06-16 with the results of the poll:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update/history/
Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2024-03-18 and 2034-04-01 at
[Teas] Regarding IPR of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
In the document history the entry at 204-04-12 compiles the list of replies
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/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 2 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 I-D nits listed against this document.

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. There is one ITU-T reference which is freely available to download from ITU-T website.

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.
No ,there are no normative downward references.

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?

No, there are no normative references which are not either RFC or a standard ITU-T document.

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.

Yes, this RFC will obsolete RFC 8776.

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" can be considered reasonable for this document.

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

The comments that were brought during the process were incorporated into the document with good consensus. I did not find controversy in any point. The modifications that were more complex were taken to the working group for discussion.

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 nor 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 updates an existing Yang model, documented in RFC 8776. The YANG model provides common data types , identities and groupings which are used in other yang models. The number of documents depending on this particular YANG model is high. Regarding the model itself, the document does not include an implementation report. It is expected that groupings specified in this document would be extensively used in the implementations of other Yang models.

## 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 provides common types/identities/groupings used by models defined in TEAS and CCAMP. Experts from both working groups have reviewed the document.

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-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

The routing directorate comments where addressed.

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-rfc8776-update/#
There are currently 0 errors and 0 warnings listed against the YANG module.

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 (in fact it is referenced by other documents that depend on this one), written with reasonable claritify, well structured and complete, 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 with building blocks reusable in serveral YANG data models.

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 document has gone through such a process.
Pre-WG adoption IPR poll. Please refer to entry 2022-06-16 with the results of the poll:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update/history/
Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2024-03-18 and 2034-04-01 at
[Teas] Regarding IPR of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
In the document history the entry at 204-04-12 compiles the list of replies
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/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 2 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 I-D nits listed against this document.

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. There is one ITU-T reference which is freely available to download from ITU-T website.

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.
No ,there are no normative downward references.

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?

No, there are no normative references which are not either RFC or a standard ITU-T document.

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.

Yes, this RFC will obsolete RFC 8776.

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" can be considered reasonable for this document.

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

The comments that were brought during the process were incorporated into the document with good consensus. I did not find controversy in any point. The modifications that were more complex were taken to the working group for discussion.

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 nor 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 updates an existing Yang model, documented in RFC 8776. The YANG model provides common data types , identities and groupings which are used in other yang models. The number of documents depending on this particular YANG model is high. Regarding the model itself, the document does not include an implementation report. It is expected that groupings specified in this document would be extensively used in the implementations of other Yang models.

## 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 provides common types/identities/groupings used by models defined in TEAS and CCAMP. Experts from both working groups have reviewed the document.

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-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/

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-rfc8776-update/#
There are currently 0 errors and 0 warnings listed against the YANG module.

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 (in fact it is referenced by other documents that depend on this one), written with reasonable claritify, well structured and complete, 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 with building blocks reusable in serveral YANG data models.

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 document has gone through such a process.
Pre-WG adoption IPR poll. Please refer to entry 2022-06-16 with the results of the poll:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update/history/
Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2024-03-18 and 2034-04-01 at
[Teas] Regarding IPR of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
In the document history the entry at 204-04-12 compiles the list of replies
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/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 2 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 I-D nits listed against this document.

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. There is one ITU-T reference which is freely available to download from ITU-T website.

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.
No ,there are no normative downward references.

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?

No, there are no normative references which are not either RFC or a standard ITU-T document.

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.

Yes, this RFC will obsolete RFC 8776.

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/

IPR responses in preparation for last call collected.
All authors and contributions replied
- Aihua Guo: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/wXB9FvEXOQEsVOt_1xEiTgVbE7g/
- Italo Busi https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/j_KZJWDXPNYkY2ZnKel0Lwro8fo/
- Rakesh Gandhi https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tVGv2psioAyHUpG5ZCwIiVxJcvY/
- Sergio Belotti https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/LYtaNikGVFndoByFAOyU6wIUNrQ/
- Igor Bryskin https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/C1soZMPr-r9VYPc8E7TUedmeCUU/
- Pavan Beeram https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/LWmyhT-NVwX1j9bisArBmsU8GXs/
- Xufeng Liu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/S6i-Aw_EYehSUJzQ1YrDmJISUEg/
- Tarek Saad https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/80QcSSJfFwhvqxa-XNHdJMDQLFo/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aihua Guo , Igor Bryskin , Italo Busi , Tarek Saad , Vishnu Beeram , Xufeng Liu , teas-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aihua Guo , Igor Bryskin , Italo Busi , Rakesh Gandhi , Tarek Saad , Vishnu Beeram , Xufeng Liu , teas-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aihua Guo , Igor Bryskin , Italo Busi , Rakesh Gandhi , Tarek Saad , Vishnu Beeram , Xufeng Liu