Skip to main content

YANG Data Model for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
RFC 9128

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-10-19
17 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9128, changed title to 'YANG Data Model for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)', changed abstract to …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9128, changed title to 'YANG Data Model for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)', changed abstract to 'This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage devices supporting Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM).  The model covers the PIM protocol configuration, operational state, and event notifications data.', changed pages to 92, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2022-10-19, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2022-10-19
17 (System) RFC published
2022-09-22
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-09-05
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-07-27
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-07-27
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2018-08-09
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT
2018-08-06
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2018-05-19
17 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-17.txt
2018-05-19
17 (System) New version approved
2018-05-19
17 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2018-05-19
17 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2018-05-17
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-05-17
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2018-05-16
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-05-16
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2018-05-16
16 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-05-16
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-05-16
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-05-16
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-05-16
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-05-16
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-05-16
16 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-05-16
16 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2018-05-16
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-04-26
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-04-26
16 Yisong Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-16.txt
2018-04-26
16 (System) New version approved
2018-04-26
16 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2018-04-26
16 Yisong Liu Uploaded new revision
2018-03-15
15 Alvaro Retana Benoit indicated that the issues below need resolution to clear his DISCUSS:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/wgbWH4N_CDhvuV_JdNfjVHM3BGU/?qid=deb6d8660effcd0143b6a3fc0da72c46
2018-03-15
15 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-02-28
15 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-15.txt
2018-02-28
15 (System) New version approved
2018-02-28
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2018-02-28
15 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2018-02-26
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-02-26
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-02-26
14 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-14.txt
2018-02-26
14 (System) New version approved
2018-02-26
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2018-02-26
14 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2018-01-11
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-01-11
13 Benoît Claise [Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Jürgen, who reminded me that the YANG doctor feedback has not been addressed or replied to.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-yang-12-yangdoctors-lc-schoenwaelder-2017-12-20/
2018-01-11
13 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2018-01-11
13 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
[removed the entries taken care of in version 13]

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What …
[Ballot comment]
[removed the entries taken care of in version 13]

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What is the status?


    import ietf-bfd-types {
      prefix "bfd-types";
    }

    grouping interface-config-attributes {
      description
        "A grouping defining interface attributes.";
      container bfd {
        if-feature bfd;
        description
          "BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) operation.";
        uses bfd-types:client-cfg-parms;
      }

From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07
  grouping client-cfg-parms {
    description
      "BFD grouping for config parameters
        used by clients of BFD, e.g. IGP or MPLS";

    leaf enable {
      type boolean;
      default false;
      description
        "Indicates whether the BFD is enabled.";
    }
    uses base-cfg-parms;
  }

From Jürgen Schönwälder:

I have reviewed this document both as ops-dir reviewer and as yang doctor. A
more detailed review has been submitted as part of the yang doctor review. Here
I am focusing on more general questions from an operational perspective.

- There are a number of parameters without defined defaults. Is the
  idea that every vendor augments in their defaults? Would it not
  overall be simpler if the PIM WG can find agreement on common
  defaults? (Vendors can still publish deviations I think.)

- I wonder how these YANG modules relate to the PIM MIB modules. Are
  for example counters the same or different? I think it would be good
  if the text would discuss relationship of the YANG modules relate to
  corresponding MIB modules.

-  There are no example configurations provided, demonstration how, for
  example, a simple PIM installation would be configured is not
  present in the document (e.g., as an appendix).
2018-01-11
13 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2018-01-10
13 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
This document has the most legible and thoroughly-cited acronym list I think I've ever seen. Thank you so much for taking the extra …
[Ballot comment]
This document has the most legible and thoroughly-cited acronym list I think I've ever seen. Thank you so much for taking the extra effort.
2018-01-10
13 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-01-10
13 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-01-10
13 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-01-10
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thanks for using the template for the security considerations.
2018-01-10
13 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-01-10
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-01-10
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-01-10
13 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-13.txt
2018-01-10
13 (System) New version approved
2018-01-10
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2018-01-10
13 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2018-01-10
12 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-01-10
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because, as Alvaro pointed out,  we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. …
[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because, as Alvaro pointed out,  we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the question of what it means in general for a Yang module to be of higher maturity than the protocol it models still stands in the general case. I don't expect that to change for _this_ particular document. ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).
2018-01-10
12 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2018-01-10
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the …
[Ballot comment]
[This was originally a DISCUSS. I've cleared because we've referenced this same experimental RFC in an standards track MIB. But I think the question of what it means in general for a Yang module to be of higher maturity than the protocol it models still stands in the general case. I don't expect that to change for _this_ particular document. ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).
2018-01-10
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-01-10
12 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
- Yes, the security considerations section must be updated, as mentioned by Kathleen.
- For consistency reasons, you want a section such as …
[Ballot comment]
- Yes, the security considerations section must be updated, as mentioned by Kathleen.
- For consistency reasons, you want a section such as
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-02#section-1.3
    or
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-08#section-2.2
- section 1, first paragraph, mentions RESTCONF next to NETCONF
- If you update the draft, the following entry is now an RFC

  [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-routing-types]
              Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
              "Routing Area Common YANG Data Types", draft-ietf-rtgwg-
              routing-types-17 (work in progress), October 2017.

- Question for Alvaro, there is a normative reference to [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang].
What is the status?


    import ietf-bfd-types {
      prefix "bfd-types";
    }

    grouping interface-config-attributes {
      description
        "A grouping defining interface attributes.";
      container bfd {
        if-feature bfd;
        description
          "BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) operation.";
        uses bfd-types:client-cfg-parms;
      }

From https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07
  grouping client-cfg-parms {
    description
      "BFD grouping for config parameters
        used by clients of BFD, e.g. IGP or MPLS";

    leaf enable {
      type boolean;
      default false;
      description
        "Indicates whether the BFD is enabled.";
    }
    uses base-cfg-parms;
  }

From Jürgen Schönwälder

I have reviewed this document both as ops-dir reviewer and as yang doctor. A
more detailed review has been submitted as part of the yang doctor review. Here
I am focusing on more general questions from an operational perspective.

- There are a number of parameters without defined defaults. Is the
  idea that every vendor augments in their defaults? Would it not
  overall be simpler if the PIM WG can find agreement on common
  defaults? (Vendors can still publish deviations I think.)

- I wonder how these YANG modules relate to the PIM MIB modules. Are
  for example counters the same or different? I think it would be good
  if the text would discuss relationship of the YANG modules relate to
  corresponding MIB modules.

-  There are no example configurations provided, demonstration how, for
  example, a simple PIM installation would be configured is not
  present in the document (e.g., as an appendix).
2018-01-10
12 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2018-01-09
12 Ben Campbell
[Ballot discuss]
[This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, since I don't know the answer to my question. I expect to clear it after a little discussion. Likely …
[Ballot discuss]
[This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, since I don't know the answer to my question. I expect to clear it after a little discussion. Likely at the first indication that one or another ADs hold the clue that I am missing :-)  ]

Is it reasonable to have a Yang module for an experimental protocol in a standards track RFC? What would that mean from a protocol maturity perspective? (I refer to the module for dense-mode PIM (RFC 3973).
2018-01-09
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-01-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be …
[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be sure to list out the nodes in each of the sections if they are sensitive or security related (graceful restart could do some damage, etc.), that would resolve my discuss.  Here's a link to the template and I'm not sure if there is a later version posted somewhere.

There seems to be a number of rw in this draft (with some overlap between modules), is that why this step was left out?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-6.1

The update in this draft appears to be the current, but please correct me if I am wrong and there is a later template:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-10#page-52

Thanks!
2018-01-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty Ballot discuss text updated for Kathleen Moriarty
2018-01-08
12 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2018-01-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be …
[Ballot discuss]
Hello,  Thanks for your work on this draft.  If you could please update the draft to follow the YANG security template and be sure to list out the nodes in each of the sections if they are sensitive or security related (graceful restart could do some damage, etc.), that would resolve my discuss.  Here's a link to the template and I'm not sure if there is a later version posted somewhere.

There seems to be a number of rw in this draft (with some overlap between modules), is that why this step was left out?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-6.1

Thanks!
2018-01-08
12 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2018-01-08
12 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-01-05
12 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I don't know what the convention is but this doc does not contain the section describing the tree diagram syntax that YANG docs …
[Ballot comment]
I don't know what the convention is but this doc does not contain the section describing the tree diagram syntax that YANG docs usually have. Is the agreement to have that in all YANG docs or is it okay to omit it?
2018-01-05
12 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-01-05
12 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-01-01
12 Melinda Shore Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. Sent review to list.
2017-12-30
12 Adrian Farrel Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel.
2017-12-29
12 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-12-28
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2017-12-28
12 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2017-12-28
12 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-12-28
12 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2017-12-26
12 Min Ye Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2017-12-26
12 Min Ye Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel
2017-12-22
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2017-12-22
12 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2017-12-22
12 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-12-20
12 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2017-12-20
12 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2017-12-19
12 Min Ye Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Patrice Brissette
2017-12-19
12 Min Ye Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Patrice Brissette
2017-12-15
12 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-12-15
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-12-15
12 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-12. 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 two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry located at

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

five new registrations are to be made:

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

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

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

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

ID: yang:ietf-pim-sm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
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 is approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

five new YANG Modules are to be registered:

Name: ietf-pim-base
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Prefix: pim-base
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-bidir
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Prefix: pim-bidir
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-dm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Prefix: pim-dm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-rp
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Prefix: pim-rp
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-sm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Prefix: pim-sm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

IANA Question --> What should be the value for "Maintained by IANA?" for each of these new YANG modules?

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 the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
2017-12-11
12 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2017-12-09
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2017-12-09
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2017-12-08
12 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-22):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG data model for Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG data model for
Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)'
  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 2017-12-22. 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 that can be used to configure
  and manage Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.  The model
  covers the PIM protocol configuration, operational state, and event
  notifications data.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/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:
    rfc3973: Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised) (Experimental - IETF stream)
    rfc3569: An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) (Informational - IETF stream)



2017-12-08
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-12-08
12 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2017-12-08
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from In Last Call
2017-12-08
12 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2017-12-08
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-12-08
12 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-12.txt
2017-12-08
12 (System) New version approved
2017-12-08
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-12-08
12 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-12-07
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-12-07
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2017-12-04
11 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-12-04
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-12-04
11 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11. 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 two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry located at

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

five new registrations are to be made:

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

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

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

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

ID: yang:ietf-pim-sm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
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 is approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

five new YANG Modules are to be registered:

Name: ietf-pim-base
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-base
Prefix: pim-base
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-bidir
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-bidir
Prefix: pim-bidir
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-dm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-dm
Prefix: pim-dm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-rp
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-rp
Prefix: pim-rp
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

Name: ietf-pim-sm
File: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Maintained by IANA?:
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pim-sm
Prefix: pim-sm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

IANA Question --> What should be the value for "Maintained by IANA?" for each of these new YANG modules?

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 the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2017-12-04
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-12-04
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-12-01
11 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to IJsbrand Wijnands
2017-12-01
11 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to IJsbrand Wijnands
2017-12-01
11 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-12-01
11 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stig@venaas.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG data model for Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG data model for
Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM)'
  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 2017-12-15. 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 that can be used to configure
  and manage Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.  The model
  covers the PIM protocol configuration, operational state, and event
  notifications data.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/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:
    draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management (None - IETF stream)
    draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NDMA Version) (None - )



2017-12-01
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Requested Telechat review by RTGDIR
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-11
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana
=== AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11 ===

Dear authors:

I just finished looking at this document.

There are a number of errors and warnings still being …
=== AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-11 ===

Dear authors:

I just finished looking at this document.

There are a number of errors and warnings still being reported by the validator in the datatracker — because the YANG Doctors review is in progress, I’m assuming that those will get fixed before IESG Evaluation, so I’m starting the IETF Last Call.

The only significant concerns that I have are related to the use of Normative Language and the characterization of the references (please see below).

Thanks!!

Alvaro.



Major:

M1. rfc2119 Normative Language

M1.1. From 2.5: "For these implementations, the restriction that interface configuration must be address-family independent MAY either be expressed…”. I think that MAY is out of place because it is not really Normative, it is just explaining options that implementations may have because of lack of support.  s/MAY/may

M1.2. There are 2 instances of “MUST” embedded in descriptions (election-state:candidate:candidate-bsr-state:elected, and df-election-container:df-election:offer-multiplier).  I think these are out of place too as the text is not specifying anything, just describing the behavior.  s/MUST/must

M1.3. After these changes, you should be able to take out the boilerplate and references to rfc2119.


M2. References: I think the following references should be Normative: RFC3569, RFC3973, RFC4610, RFC4607, RFC5015, RFC5059, RFC7761 and I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.


Minor:

P1. I believe the following references can be Informative:  RFC6241, RFC6536


Nits:

N1. s/draft/document (when used in the text)

N2. In 2.5: s/This is similar to other protocol Yang models such as IS-IS./This is similar to other protocol Yang models.  Or maybe even take that sentence out.  There’s no reference to the IS-IS module — and in the end doing it “because others did it” may not be the best justification…the rest of this section provides justification.
2017-12-01
11 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
2017-11-28
11 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-11-28
11 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-11-28
11 Mehmet Ersue Assignment of request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS to Jan Lindblad was rejected
2017-11-28
11 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jan Lindblad
2017-11-28
11 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jan Lindblad
2017-11-27
11 Stig Venaas Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2017-10-21
11 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-11.txt
2017-10-21
11 (System) New version approved
2017-10-21
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-10-21
11 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-09-30
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-09-30
10 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-10.txt
2017-09-30
10 (System) New version approved
2017-09-30
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-09-30
10 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-09-25
09 Alvaro Retana The latest version, which is NMDA compliant, has a number of errors/warnings resulting from Yang Validation.
2017-09-25
09 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-09-25
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-09-25
09 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-09.txt
2017-09-25
09 (System) New version approved
2017-09-25
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Yisong Liu , Xufeng Liu , fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-09-25
09 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-08-09
08 Alvaro Retana We need a revision to be in line with the NMDA guidelines.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg18252.html
2017-08-09
08 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2017-04-08
08 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-08.txt
2017-04-08
08 (System) New version approved
2017-04-08
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-04-08
08 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-03-17
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dean Bogdanovic.
2017-03-17
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Dean Bogdanovic
2017-03-17
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Dean Bogdanovic
2017-03-17
07 Mehmet Ersue Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2017-03-11
07 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-07.txt
2017-03-11
07 (System) New version approved
2017-03-11
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-03-11
07 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-03-11
06 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-06.txt
2017-03-11
06 (System) New version approved
2017-03-11
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anish Peter , Xufeng Liu , Yisong Liu , pim-chairs@ietf.org, fangwei hu , Pete McAllister , Mahesh Sivakumar
2017-03-11
06 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas
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 …
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.

(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?

Standards Track. We want this YANG model to be a 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
The document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.

Working Group Summary
A design team with members from more than 6 different vendors have been involved in designing this model. The authors were also working for 6 different vendors when most of the draft was written. There was not much review or feedback from non-authors in the WG, but given the design team and the number of vendors involved, we believe we have good support. All issues that was raised in the 2 working group last calls have been addressed.

Document Quality
Several vendors are planning to implement this. There are operators waiting for this to be ready. The model has also gone through YANG doctor review.

Personnel
Stig Venaas is the shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded todraft-i
the IESG.
The shepherd has done a detailed review, and all comments addressed. However I just noticed that the abstract should also mention that it is an operational model or used for management. Not just configuration.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(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.
It is worth checking how the YANG model aligns with other models for interfaces, routing, BFD and also etf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. A YANG doctor has reviewed this, but some of these models may also have been updated recently.

(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.
My only concern is the alignment with other IETF YANG models as mentioned above.

(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, all authors have stated that they are not aware of any IPR claims.

(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? 
Given the number of people from at least 6 vendors agreeing on the model and no one raising issues I believe so. The draft has been presented at several meetings and discussed on the mailing list. And there has been thorough discussions in the design team.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There are some warning about weird spacing. Also it has 2119 boilerplate but no 2119 keywords. There are a couple of references missing in the reference section. Given that there is a draft submission deadline on in a few days I hope the document can still move forward and that this can be addressed as part of the IETF last call.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
It was reviewed by a YANG doctor.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are a couple of references in the text that are missing in the references section. I think these should be informative references, although one of them should possibly be normative.

(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?
Yes, there is a normative reference to draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. It may have to wait for this to complete before publication.

(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, don't think so.

(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).

It needs addition to existing XML and YANG registries. I believe it is fine, but I'm a bit unfamiliar with what is expected for these registries.

(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.

No new registries.

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

It was found to compile with the IETF YANG tools. There were some warnings, but these are an issue with the tool, not with the draft.
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Changed document writeup
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Notification list changed to Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
2017-03-08
05 Stig Venaas Document shepherd changed to Stig Venaas
2017-02-20
05 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-05.txt
2017-02-20
05 (System) New version approved
2017-02-20
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Xufeng Liu" , "Mahesh Sivakumar" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Xufeng Liu" , "Mahesh Sivakumar" , "Anish Peter"
2017-02-20
05 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-02-20
04 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-04.txt
2017-02-20
04 (System) New version approved
2017-02-20
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , "Mahesh Sivakumar"
2017-02-20
04 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2016-10-11
03 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-03.txt
2016-10-11
03 (System) New version approved
2016-10-11
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Pete McAllister" , "fangwei hu" , "Xufeng Liu" , "Yisong Liu" , pim-chairs@ietf.org, "Anish Peter" , "Mahesh Sivakumar"
2016-10-11
02 Xufeng Liu Uploaded new revision
2016-08-02
02 Xufeng Liu New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-02.txt
2016-05-18
01 Pete McAllister New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-01.txt
2016-02-10
00 Mike McBride This document now replaces draft-mcallister-pim-yang instead of None
2016-02-10
00 Pete McAllister New version available: draft-ietf-pim-yang-00.txt