YANG Data Model for the IS-IS Protocol
RFC 9130

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9130, changed title to 'YANG Data Model for the IS-IS Protocol', changed abstract to 'This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage the IS-IS protocol on network elements.', changed pages to 103, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2022-10-19, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the updates in the -41!
I think that "i-e" in the following got missed, but that can probably be done with an
RFC Editor note, so I'm clearing my Discuss:

    grouping neighbor {
      description  "IS-IS standard neighbor grouping.";
      leaf neighbor-id {
        type extended-system-id;
        description "IS-IS neighbor system-id";
      }
      container instances {
        description "List of all adjacencies between the local
                      system and the neighbor system-id.";
        list instance {
          key id;

          leaf id {
            type uint32;
            description "Unique identifier of an instance of a
                          particular neighbor.";
          }
          leaf i-e {
            type boolean;
            description
              "Internal or External (I/E) Metric bit value";
          }

Also, I think that a spurious 'd' got added into "Routing Information Based".

[Ballot comment]

Thanks for the work that went into this model. I have only a handful
of minor issues I found when reading through the module.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    grouping spf-parameters {
>      container spf-control {
>          leaf paths {
>            if-feature max-ecmp;
>            type uint16 {
>              range "1..32";
>            }

Why is this a uint16 rather than a uint8?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>      leaf-list tag {
>        type uint32;
>        description
>          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";
>      }
>      leaf-list tag64 {
>        type uint64;
>        description
>          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";
>      }

I think this second description is meant to say "64-bit" rather than "32-bit".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>      leaf reason {
>        type string {
>          length "1..255";
>        }
>        description
>          "The system may provide a reason to reject the
>          adjacency. If the reason is not available,
>          an empty string will be returned.
>          The expected format is a single line text.";
>      }

This description is inconsistent with the definition: it calls for an empty
string, while the definition requires that at lest one character be present. If
you want to keep the description as-is, you need to adjust the length to be
"0..255". Alternately, you might indicate that the field is simply to be
omitted rather than empty, which appears to be the intention for other
"reason" fields in this model.

[Ballot discuss]
Perhaps the most minor thing that could be Discuss-level, and should be
trivial to resolve, but:

The "i-e" leaf in groupings prefix-ipv4-std and neighbor does not say
whether boolean value true corresponds to internal or external.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1

  This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model for IS-IS routing
  protocol.

nit: "the IS-IS routing protocol"

Section 2.8

  This YANG module supports LFA (Loop Free Alternates) [RFC5286] and
  remote LFA [RFC7490] as IP Fast Re-Route (FRR) techniques.  The
  "fast-reroute" container may be augmented by other models to support
  other IP FRR flavors (MRT, TI-LFA, etc.).

If we're going to give examples of other flavors, do we want to have
informative references for them?  (This is particularly relevant since
we define enumeration values for them in the "alternate-type"
enumeration.)

Section 6

    identity lsp-attached-default-metric-flag {
        base lsp-flag;
        description "Set when originator is attached to
              another area using the referred metric.";

nit(?): I'm not sure whether the "referred" in the description is
appropriate given the "default" in the identity name.

    feature ldp-igp-sync {
      description
        "LDP IGP synchronization.";

nit: the surrounding context suggests that "Support for" would give a
more consistent style.  Maybe for auto-cost, te-rid, max-ecmp,
lsp-refresh, and admin-control as well.

    feature nlpid-control {
      description
        "This feature controls the advertisement
          of support NLPID within IS-IS configuration.";

nit: "support for"

    feature maximum-area-addresses {
      description
        "Support of maximum-area-addresses config.";

nit: s/of/for/

          leaf alternate-type {
            type enumeration {
              [...]
              enum other {
                description
                  "Unknown alternate type.";

Do I remember correctly that enumerations are not extensible in the
future?  I don't know how relevant that would be here, though.

In the "protection-available" container, is there some sort of
constraint that two of the alternate-metrics add up to the third?

      container unprotected-routes {
        config false;
        list address-family-stats {

nit: the name/description of address-family-stats doesn't match up with
the parent container that just claims to be a list of unprotected
prefixes (no stats).

      list protection-statistics {

side note: I wonder whether the various uint32 leaves are better as
gauge32 than plain uint32.
Also, perhaps the description could mention a relationship bteween
total-routes/protected-routes+unprotected-routes, and/or
protected-routes/link-protected-routes+node-protected-routes.

    grouping route-content {
      [...]
      leaf-list tag {
        type uint64;
        description
          "List of tags associated with the route. The leaf
            describes both 32-bit and 64-bit tags.";

Are these the admin tags from RFC 5130?  Where is it specified that the
32- and 64-bit variants are just different views into a single
consolidated tag namespace?

    grouping authentication-global-cfg {

I see how "global" is in contrast to a smaller scope (hello, interface,
adjacency, etc.) both here and elsewhere, but when we have a global
defeault as well as per-level configuration that use the same grouping,
it ceases to be universally "global".  But, it's probably too late to be
worth changing so many names just for aesthetics...

      leaf poi-tlv {
        if-feature poi-tlv;
        type boolean;
        default false;
        description
          "Enable advertisement of IS-IS purge TLV.";

nit(?): I thought the purge origin identification TLV was an extension
to the generic purge capability but this description ("purge TLV") is
very generic.

Should any of the uint32 leaves in "packet-counters" instead be of type
counter32?

    grouping spf-log {
      [...]
          leaf id {
            type uint32;
            description
              "Event identifier -  purely internal value.";

Is there anything useful to say about the IDs being chronologically
ordered?  (Also applies to the other logs.)

      container delay-metric {
        leaf metric {
          type std-metric;
          description "IS-IS delay metric for IPv4 prefix";
        }
        leaf supported {
          type boolean;

Should the "metric" leaf be conditional on "supported" being true?
(Same for the other flavors of metric, as well as when they appear later
on in the "neighbor" grouping.)

      container expense-metric {
        leaf metric {
          type std-metric;
          description "IS-IS expense metric for IPv4 prefix";
        }
        leaf supported {
          type boolean;
          default "false";
          description
            "Indicates whether IS-IS delay metric is supported.";

nit: copy/paste-o delay vs. expense?

      container error-metric {
        [...]
        leaf supported {
          type boolean;
          default "false";
          description "IS-IS error metric for IPv4 prefix";

I think "Indicates whether [...] is supported" would be more consistent
with the sibling nodes.

    grouping prefix-ipv4-extended {
      [...]
      leaf up-down {
        type boolean;
        description  "Value of up/down bit.";

I assume true means "up", but we really ought to say...
(Also in prefix-ipv6-extended if not more)

      leaf ip-prefix {
        type inet:ipv4-address;
        description "IPv4 prefix address";
      }
      leaf prefix-len {
        type uint8;
        description "IPv4 prefix length (in bits)";

Doesn't RFC 6991 give us a combined ipv4-prefix type?  (I could imagine
that doing string parsing on it is less automation-friendly than the
representation here, of course...)

      leaf-list tag64 {
        type uint64;
        description
          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";

nit: s/32/64/

    grouping prefix-ipv6-extended {
      [...]
      leaf prefix-len {
        type uint8;
        description  "IPv4 prefix length (in bits)";

nit: s/4/6/

      leaf-list tag {
        type uint32;
        description
          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";
      }
      leaf-list tag64 {
        type uint64;
        description
          "List of 32-bit tags associated with the IPv4 prefix.";

s/IPv4/IPv6/; $s/32/64/

      container unidirectional-link-delay-variation {
        description
          "Container for the average delay variation
          from the local neighbor to the remote one.";
        leaf value {
          type uint32;
          units usec;
          description
            "Delay variation value expressed in microseconds.";

Is this a standard deviation (variance), mean absolute error, ...?

      container unidirectional-link-loss {
        [...]
        leaf value {
          type uint32;
          units percent;
          description
            "Link packet loss expressed as a percentage
            of the total traffic sent over a configurable interval.";

This document is all about specifying configuration.  How do I configure
the interval in question?

      container unidirectional-link-loss {
        [...]

Is there a relationship worth mentioning amongst the residual,
available, and utilized bandwidth?

          container expense-metric {
            leaf metric {
              type std-metric;
              description "IS-IS delay expense metric value";
            }
            leaf supported {
              type boolean;
              default "false";
              description "IS-IS delay expense metric supported";
            }
            description "IS-IS delay expense metric container";

Previously we just used "expense metric" instead of "delay expense
metric".

    notification lsp-too-large {
      uses notification-instance-hdr;
      uses notification-interface-hdr;

This is probably just for my education and not the document's sake, but
both these groupings include a leaf of type 'level' (though for
different names).  Are they just always going to have the same value?

      leaf reason {
        type string {
          length "1..255";
        }
        description
          "The system may provide a reason to reject the
            adjacency. If the reason is not available,
            an empty string will be returned.
            The expected format is a single line text.";

Wouldn't an empty string be zero-length (which is forbidden by the
length restriction)?

Section 7

I'm happy to see that several of the notifications mandate rate-limiting
their generation, in the description text, alleviating any concerns
about "spamminess" or DoS due to notification load!  It might be worth a
brief mention in the security considerations that that's why the
rate-limiting is in place.

  For IS-IS authentication, configuration is supported via the
  specification of key-chain [RFC8177] or the direction specification
  of key and authentication algorithm.  Hence, authentication

nit: s/direction/direct/

  configuration using the "auth-table-trailer" case in the
  "authentication" container inherits the security considerations of
  [RFC8177].  This includes the considerations with respect to the
  local storage and handling of authentication keys.

I'd consider also noting that the key-chain method is preferred (a
listing of why may not be needed and can probably be found in other
references).

Appendix A

Please use an address from the blocks reserved by RFC 5737 instead of
1.1.1.1, which is in actual use on the public Internet.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 7.  A DISCUSS for discussion.  Thanks for this enumeration of writeable and readable nodes which could be considered sensitive.  Per the list of nodes that could expose the topology of the network, wouldn’t the following also have sensitive topology information:

-- /isis/local-rib

-- /isis/hostnames

Furthermore, shouldn’t the log files also be protected as the errors or status posted there could also leak topology information:
-- /isis/spf-log

-- /isis/lsp-log

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document.  Disclaimer: I am neither an IS-IS export nor a YANG doctor ;-)

I have 2 COMMENTs below.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.3 --
C.1) Is there a reason to have one example with a generic value of 250 that will never be used as you are either level-1 or level-2 ? (I am not an IS-IS expert of course)

-- Section 6 / YANG module --

C.2) About lsp-entry/remaining-lifetime, is there also a state about the received hold time ? It could be interesting to know whether the remaining lifetime is 3% of the original lifetime or 30% ;-) But again, I am not an IS-IS expert

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this YANG module.  My comments are all editorial, and there’s no need for a response... please just consider these, as they will help make the document clearer.

Throughout the document, please hyphenate the following as shown here:
per-topology basis
per-interface basis
per-level configuration
per-level value
level-specific parameter
interface-specific parameter
vendor-specific

When you use “like” to mean “such as”, it’s ambiguous: “like” can also introduce a comparison, so does “fruit, like an apple” mean any fruit (and an apple is an example), or are you talking specifically about fruit that is in some way similar to an apple?  It’s better to say “such as”, to avoid the ambiguity.  All instances of “like” in the document should be changed, *except* for “encoded as a MAC address like” on page 35 and “would like to thank” in the Contributors section.

Other, specific comments:

— Section 2.1 —

  The model implements features, thus some of the configuration
  statement becomes optional.

This is an odd sentence that I’m having a hard time understanding.  Do you mean this?:

NEW
  This model includes optional features, for which the corresponding
  configuration statements are optional.
END

  By advertising the feature "admin-control", a device communicates to
  the client that it supports the ability to shutdown a particular IS-
  IS instance.

The verb “shut down” is two words.

— Section 2.2 —

  Some specific parameters can be defined on a per topology basis both
  at global level and at interface level

Apart from adding a hyphen in “per-topology basis”, you need “the” before both “global” and “interface”.  There are many places throughout the document where articles (usually “the”, but sometimes “a” or “an”) are missing.  Someone familiar with the correct use of articles should take a pass through the document.

— Section 2.3 —
In the last two paragraphs of the section, one uses “should” advertise and the other uses “SHOULD” advertise.  They should either both be BCP 14 key words, or both not.

— Section 2.6 —

  The goal of this empty
  container is to allow easy augmentation with additional parameters
  like timers for example.

As I noted above, you should use “such as”, rather than “like”, and you don’t *also* need “for example”, because “such as” already has that covered.  So, “...additional parameters, such as timers.”

— Section 2.8 —

  The "candidate-enable" allows to mark an interface to be used as a
  backup.

You need a subject for the verb after “allows” or “requires”.  It has to allow  to mark an interface, and you can’t omit the .  So what is it?

If there really is no sensible entity to put there, you can use passive voice, ‘The "candidate-enable" option allows an interface to be marked for use as a backup.’

— Section 2.9 —
Throughout the section, “information” is a collective noun; we don’t say “informations”.

— Section 4 —
The first four notification descriptions start with “raised when”, and the rest start with “This notification is sent when”.  Please make them consistent, one way or the other.

— Section 5 —

  Some IS-IS specific routes attributes are added to route objects

I think this is supposed to say, “Some IS-IS-specific route attributes are added...” (add another hyphen and take the “s” off “routes”).

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-36. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two 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/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-isis
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be 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/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu , aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Data Model for IS-IS Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'YANG Data Model for IS-IS Protocol'
  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 2019-09-23. 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 that can be used to configure
  and manage IS-IS protocol on network elements.





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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg/ballot/


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

Changed document URLs from:

[u'yang-impact-analysis https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg)', u'yang-module-metadata https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang)']

to:

yang-module-metadata https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-isis@2019-03-07.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-isis@2019-03-07.yang)
yang-impact-analysis https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-isis@2019-03-07.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg)

Changed document URLs from:

[u'yang-impact-analysis https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg)', u'yang-module-metadata https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang)']

to:

yang-impact-analysis https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-isis@2019-03-07.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg)

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.
      This RFC is intended to define a YANG module to managing the ISIS protocol.

(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:
From the Abstract:
  This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
  and manage IS-IS protocol on network elements.

Working Group Summary:
 
    The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should
    be published.
    This document went through multiple reviews within the working group over the
    course of its development. Multiple revisions were done as part of making the module
    to follow NMDA structure.
    The current document represents a proper management framework for the most
    commonly deployed ISIS features covered in various ISIS RFCs. The design of
    this module also takes future extensions/augmentations into considerations.
     
Document Quality:
     
      There are currently no known implementations of this YANG module.
      Expert review was done by YANG Doctors. All comments have been
    addressed, and there is no open issues.

Personnel:
      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF/LSR mailing lists.


(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.

      The document still needs to be reviewed by the relevant directorates.

(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?

    Yes.

(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?

      There is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Appropriate expert reviews, including Yang doctors, have been done.

(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?
 
      All remaining non-RFC normative references are on track for publication as RFCs.

(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.
      Idnits shows one possible downref:
          Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-10589'
      To the shepherd’s understanding, this is only because it’s NOT RFC.

(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).

The IANA considerations section is fine.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.
      This RFC is intended to define a YANG module to managing the ISIS protocol.

(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:
From the Abstract:
  This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
  and manage IS-IS protocol on network elements.

Working Group Summary:
 
    The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should
    be published.
    This document went through multiple reviews within the working group over the
    course of its development. Multiple revisions were done as part of making the module
    to follow NMDA structure.
    The current document represents a proper management framework for the most
    commonly deployed ISIS features covered in various ISIS RFCs. The design of
    this module also takes future extensions/augmentations into considerations.
     
Document Quality:
     
      There are currently no known implementations of this YANG module.
      Expert review was done by YANG Doctors. All comments have been
    addressed, and there is no open issues.

Personnel:
      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana 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 has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF/LSR mailing lists.


(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.

      The document still needs to be reviewed by the relevant directorates.

(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?

    Yes.

(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?

      There is consensus from the WG that this document can progress.

(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.

      Nits are all resolved.

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

      Appropriate expert reviews, including Yang doctors, have been done.

(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?
 
      All remaining non-RFC normative references are on track for publication as RFCs.

(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.
      Idnits shows one possible downref:
          Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-10589'
      To the shepherd’s understanding, this is only because it’s NOT RFC.

(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).

The IANA considerations section is fine.

(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.

      Not applicable.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Derek M. Yeung" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Acee Lindem" , "Ladislav Lhotka"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Derek M. Yeung" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Acee Lindem" , "Ladislav Lhotka"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang" , isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Derek M. Yeung" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Acee Lindem" , "Ladislav Lhotka"