A YANG Data Model for IP Management
RFC 7277

[Ballot comment]
We settled on this ...

OLD:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, or an
            RFC 4941 privacy address.";
        }

NEW:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration that embeds a link-layer address in its interface identifier.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, an
            RFC 4941 temporary address, or a semantically opaque address [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses].";
        }

[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 should be a normative reference from the way it is used.

---

A number of terms are used without being mentioned in Section 1.1. From
recent experience discussing these issues in the Ops Area where it was
not clear that everyone had a common understanding of some of the terms,
the absence of referenced definitions make this a Discuss point.

configuration data
list key
tree
subtree
node
presence container
leaf-list
choice node
case node

It may be that you can make a wholesale reference such as "The
terminology for describing YANG data models is found in RFC foo" but
check that all of the terms are actually defined there.

[Ballot comment]

This used to be a discuss, now a comment based on
Martin Bjorklund's mail...

"Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now they are
not (or I missed it:-) Only reason to ask is just in case
some less common option like that isn't supported here and
where that could in future become a barrier to adoption.
I'm guessing this is ok and CGA handling is part of
"temporary" address handling probably.  Is that right? If
so, I'm not clear how various different forms of temporary
address might be handled nor why its ok to not represent
that here."

Martin says that this doesn't cover SEND and so neither
does it include CGAs.

I think it'd be good to clarity which kind(s) of temporary
addresses are/are-not covered by this and/or which
kind(s) would call for extensions to this data model.

[Ballot discuss]
These type definition descriptions for ip-address-origin in Section 4 don't seem quite right:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, or an
            RFC 4941 privacy address.";
        }

Randomized IIDs, whether static or generated according to RFC 4941, are used in statelessly auto-configured addresses (that is, those addresses are a subset of what is enumerated as "link-layer" above).

Also, in the random type definition for ip-address-origin, I think it makes sense to include addresses generated via draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses (about to be published as an RFC I believe).

So, perhaps the following is closer to what was intended:

        enum link-layer {
          description
            "Indicates an address created by IPv6 stateless
            auto-configuration that embeds a link-layer address in its interface identifier.";
        }
        enum random {
          description
            "Indicates an address chosen by the system at
            random, e.g., an IPv4 address within 169.254/16, an
            RFC 4941 temporary address, or a semantically opaque address [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses].";
        }

A further question is whether the WG considered including the choice of configuring a semantically opaque address in the data model itself? I don't know enough about YANG to know whether there are extensibility options that would make that easy to add later (after further deployment of semantically opaque IIDs, say).

[Ballot discuss]
I think this will be a quick discussion, but I am concerned with the use of ipv6-address-no-zone within this document.  Is it the case that IPv6 addresses that need RFC 4007 scope zone information will be delineated by the parent interface information?

[Ballot comment]
The tables in section 3 that map YANG data nodes to IP-MIB objects are useful, but incomplete.  For example, the tables do not mention IPv4 Forwarding state being mapped to the ipForwarding object defined in RFC 4293.  Any changes related to this table should probably create reference strings in the corresponding nodes.

[Ballot discuss]
I believe that my discuss concerns can be handled really easily, and I hope
we can advance this document quickly.

---

RFC 6241 should be a normative reference from the way it is used.

---

A number of terms are used without being mentioned in Section 1.1. From
recent experience discussing these issues in the Ops Area where it was
not clear that everyone had a common understanding of some of the terms,
the absence of referenced definitions make this a Discuss point.

configuration data
list key
tree
subtree
node
presence container
leaf-list
choice node
case node

It may be that you can make a wholesale reference such as "The
terminology for describing YANG data models is found in RFC foo" but
check that all of the terms are actually defined there.

---

This Discuss issue is intended for discussion with the OPS ADs and is
not for action by the document authors. It will be removed from the
Discuss after we have talked about it on the IESG telechat

Are there really no tools for checking YANG consistency and
compilability?

Are there no formal review criteria equivalent to the MIB doctor and
associated guidance?

The shepherd write-up implies not.

These are surely things that we need to get in place PDQ.

[Ballot comment]
Given how fundamental this work is, it would be nice to hear about
implementations both on the client and server side. I worry about this
going ahead as "speculative".

---

FWIW I find it difficult that a leaf in different trees can have the
same name. I understand that this is allowed (and even common), but it
would make it a lot easier to read if the names were distinguished.

---

Section 1.2

OLD
  o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
      (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
NEW
  o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration                     
      data (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
END

---

Pedantically...

leaf enabled and leaf forwarding make a distinction between "send and
receive" and "forward", yet leaf mtu has

          description
            "The size, in octets, of the largest IPv4 packet that the
            interface will send and receive.

That probably needs to be fixed if mtu also applies to forwarding.

---

I'm sure that IANA has already worked it out, but the IANA
Considerations section could still be usefully updated to properly point
at the registries.

OLD
  This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
  Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is
  requested to be made.
NEW
  IANA maintains a registry called "IETF URN Sub-namespace for
  Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" with a sub-registry called
  "xml".  IANA is requested to make the following registration from
  this sub-registry.
END

[Ballot discuss]

I just have one hopefully quickly handled question, most
likely the answer won't need changes, just educating me a
bit:-)

Should CGAs be mentioned in the model? Right now they are
not (or I missed it:-) Only reason to ask is just in case
some less common option like that isn't supported here and
where that could in future become a barrier to adoption.
I'm guessing this is ok and CGA handling is part of
"temporary" address handling probably.  Is that right? If
so, I'm not clear how various different forms of temporary
address might be handled nor why its ok to not represent
that here.

[Ballot comment]
Security Considerations section for both Netmod drafts:
Add a RECOMMEND use of SSH in addition to the MTI to prevent MITM or monitoring attacks (pervasive or otherwise).

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts:
    draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg
    draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type
    draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cf

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

This set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard)

And one document that describes supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (Proposed standard)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12

This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.
The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters
for the collection of statistics.

draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations.
     
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG
module for interface type definitions.


Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following.

While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in
April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between
operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last
call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating
operational state from configuration management and that this should have
been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back
from IESG review and worked to add this to the model.


Document Quality:

This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
additional review from Dave Thaler.


Personnel
David Kessens is the document shepherd (and Thomas Nadeau lately)
Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called.

Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as
this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by
the rfc editor.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Done.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-12.  This is the second
Last Call.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.
Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which we must complete.

First, in the namespace subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xml#ns

a single new URI will be added to the registry as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-ip
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Filename: /ns/yang/ietf-ip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, this document requests that a single new YANG module be added to
the YANG Module Names registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xml

as follows:

Name: ietf-ip
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Prefix: ip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until
the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message
is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for IP Management) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for IP Management'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-01-23. 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 YANG data model for management of IP
  implementations.  The data model includes configuration data and
  state data.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts:
    draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg
    draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type
    draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cf

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

This set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard)

And one document that describes supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (Proposed standard)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12

This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.
The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters
for the collection of statistics.

draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations.
     
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG
module for interface type definitions.


Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following.

While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in
April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between
operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last
call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating
operational state from configuration management and that this should have
been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back
from IESG review and worked to add this to the model.


Document Quality:

This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
additional review from Dave Thaler.


Personnel
David Kessens is the document shepherd.
Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called.

Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as
this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by
the rfc editor.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Done.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:


IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and
respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are two
actions which we must complete.

First, in the namespace subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xml#ns

a single new URI will be added to the registry as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-ip
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Filename: /ns/yang/ietf-ip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, this document requests that a single new YANG module be added to
the YANG Module Names registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xml

as follows:

Name: ietf-ip
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip
Prefix: ip
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

We understand that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until
the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message
is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce:;
CC:
Bcc:
Reply-To: IETF Discussion List
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for IP Management) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for IP Management'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-05-03. 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 YANG data model for management of IP
  implementations.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg/ballot/


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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

This set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 (Proposed standard)

And two document that describe supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00  (Proposed standard, obsoletes rfc 6021)
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 (Proposed standard)


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.

draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations.
     
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00

This document introduces a collection of common data types to be used
with the YANG data modeling language.  This document obsoletes RFC
6021.

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type and
iana-afn-safi YANG modules, for interface type definitions, and Address
Family Numbers (AFN) and Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI),
respectively.


Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
consensus with nothing special worth mentioning.
   

Document Quality:

This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
additional review from Dave Thaler.

Personnel
David Kessens is the document shepherd.
Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the WG considers it unnecessary.

RFC 6021 is obsoleted.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Done.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A