Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area
RFC 8294

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8294, changed title to 'Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area', changed abstract to 'This document defines a collection of common data types using the YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.', changed pages to 43, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-12-14, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
This is a small thing, but in general I think it would be preferable not to embed the name "iana" in identifiers that can be consumed programmatically (the namespace URN and module name). What distinguishes the iana-routing-types module seems to be that the types define values for address family identifiers, not the fact that the registries containing those identifiers happen to be administered by IANA. If somebody else administered those registries it would have no effect on the contents of the module.

[Ballot comment]
Section 2:

Are these types in any particular order? If not, you might consider alphabetizing them to make thing easier to find.

  uint24
      This type defines a 24-bit unsigned integer.  It is used by
      target="I-D.ietf-ospf-yang"/>.

There appears to be some XML damage here.

____

There are several patterns in the YANG definition that perform significant restriction of numbers (e.g., to ensure they don't fall outside the range that can be stored in 16 or 32 bits). In many cases, these patterns include the ability to zero-prefix some (but not all) decimal values. For example, the production for route-origin would allow leading zeros in "2:0100:0555" but not in "2:04294967295:065535" (even though "2:4294967295:65535" is okay). I don't know offhand whether it makes sense to allow leading zeros in these fields, but I would argue that the production should be consistent in allowing or disallowing them. This issue arises in various forms in route-target, ipv6-route-target, route-origin, and ipv6-route-origin.

The definition of bandwidth-ieee-float32 includes the following text:

          The encoding format is the external hexadecimal-significant
          character sequences specified in IEEE 754 and C99. The
          format is restricted to be normalized, non-negative, and
          non-fraction: 0x1.hhhhhhp{+}d or 0X1.HHHHHHP{+}D
          where 'h' and 'H' are hexadecimal digits, 'd' and 'D' are
          integers in the range of [0..127].

Notably, this prose clearly says that values can start with "0x1" and "0X1", but not "0x0" or "0X0" -- while the pattern production does allow 0x0, and the examples even include values starting with 0x0. The quoted prose above should be re-worked so it also allows values starting with 0x0 and 0X0.

[Ballot comment]
It would be good to call out the elements that are identifiers in the security considerations section as the ones that might have an impact on security and privacy.  The text in 7950 is good, but just adding something to list the identifiers or state that identifiers may be of concern would be an improvement.  Thanks.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

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

two new URIs are to be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-routing-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:iana-routing-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-routing-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC8126] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

two new YANG Module Names are to be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-routing-types
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-types
Prefix: rt-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-routing-types
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-routing-types
Prefix: iana-rt-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> There appears to be a third request for an IANA Action in section 5.1 of the current draft. The request appears to be for a new registry called the iana-routing-types YANG Module registry. We note that section 5.1 of the current draft contains language for other registries. Is this a request for a new registry? If so, where is the new registry to be located and how is it to be maintained (please see RFC 8126)? Are there to be any initial values in the registry? Could the authors be explicit in section 5.1 about the contents of the registry?

The IANA Services Operator understands that these three 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.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, rtgwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Routing Area Common YANG Data Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'Routing Area Common YANG Data
Types'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-10-03. 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 collection of common data types using the
  YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed
  to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc3429: Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions (Informational - IETF stream)

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

  The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. 
  The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.
  This document defines a collection of common data types using the
  YANG data modeling language to be used in the routing area.

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

Technical Summary
 

  This document defines a collection of common data types using the
  YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed
  to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.

Working Group Summary

  This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG, very good feedback has been provided by OPS area and vendor community.
  The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.
  All comments have been addressed. The draft is ready for publication.

Document Quality

  The draft went thru many rounds of reviews by YANG-Doctors as well as implementors, which resulted in a very high quality document.
  There are upcoming implementations and multiple vendors have shown significant interest in the topic. 

Personnel

  Jeff Tantsura is the Document Shepherd.
  Alia Atlas is the Responsible Area Director.

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

  The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
  All comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.

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

  No concerns.

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

  The draft has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors.

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

  N/A

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

  Yes.  Every author has confirmed.

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

  Yes.  The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG
  list about IPR at every step of the process.  There haven't been
  any concerns raised on the list.

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

  The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

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

  No nits.

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

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

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

  Yes.

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

  No.

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

  No.

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

  The state of other documents remains unchanged.

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

  This draft registers URI’s in the IETF XML registry.

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

  N/A

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

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