A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)
draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-26
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-19
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2024-04-15
|
26 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2024-04-15
|
26 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-04-15
|
26 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-04-12
|
26 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-04-12
|
26 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-12
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-04-12
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2024-04-12
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-04-12
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-04-12
|
26 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-04-11
|
26 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-11
|
26 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-04-11
|
26 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-26.txt |
2024-04-11
|
26 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-11
|
26 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Haomian Zheng , Kwang-koog Lee , Oscar de Dios , Young Lee |
2024-04-11
|
26 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-01
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Please review and revise the document per the the IESG COMMENTs. |
2024-03-01
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Young Lee, Kwang-koog Lee, Haomian Zheng, Oscar de Dios, Daniele Ceccarelli (IESG state changed) |
2024-03-01
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-02-29
|
25 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-02-29
|
25 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-02-28
|
25 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I have nothing to add, other than to agree with Rob Wilton's comments. |
2024-02-28
|
25 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-02-27
|
25 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-02-26
|
25 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-02-23
|
25 | (System) | from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-02-23
|
25 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for publishing this document and YANG module. It looks good to me, with just one minor comment: (1) p 2, sec … [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for publishing this document and YANG module. It looks good to me, with just one minor comment: (1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction The primary focus of this document is to describe L1CSM YANG model required for the instantiation of point-to-point L1 connectivity services, to provide Layer 1 connectivity between two or more customer sites where the customer has some control over the establishment and type of the connectivity. The L1CSM specified in this document supports the point-to-point connectivity services defined in [RFC4847]. I'm struggling to parse the first sentence in paragraph above. Perhaps the following is clearer? The primary focus of this document is to describe the L1CSM YANG model that is used for the instantiation of point-to-point L1 connectivity services, which provide Layer 1 connectivity between two or more customer sites where the customer has some control over the establishment and type of the connectivity. It also wasn't really clear to me how the YANG model relates to the 3 different abstract services models that you described. Is it possible for the relationship to be a bit more clearly explained please. Regards, Rob |
2024-02-23
|
25 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2024-02-22
|
25 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-02-21
|
25 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD, and to Luis for the clear and comprehensive … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD, and to Luis for the clear and comprehensive shepherd writeup. |
2024-02-21
|
25 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2024-02-20
|
25 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Luis Contreras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2024-02-16/ (hoping to read soon replies to his review) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Ambiguous use of model In several places in the I-D, 'model' is used when "data model" is more accurate and less ambiguous. ## Section 1 In `(i.e., reachability or TE information in remote customer sites)` should it rather be 'e.g.' (== for example) ? ## Section 1.1 Suggest to move the figure 1 *after* the text explaining it (as the text expands some acronyms). No need to reply on this comment. ## Section 2 Should leaf names "uni-id" and "service-id" simply be "id" ? ## Section 4 Rather than `L1CSM YANG Code`, why not "L1CSM YANG data model" ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## L1 or layer 1 ? The I-D should be consistent and use either "L1" or "layer 1" rather than alternating both terms. ## YANG in uppercase Please ensure to use all uppercase "YANG" throughout this I-D. ## Abstract s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/This document provides a YANG *data model* Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/ s/This model can be utilized/This *data* model can be *utilised*/ s/Layer 1 network/layer-1 network/ ## Section 1 s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1/This document provides a YANG *data model* *l*ayer 1/ |
2024-02-20
|
25 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-02-17
|
25 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-02-16
|
25 | Antoine Fressancourt | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Antoine Fressancourt. Sent review to list. |
2024-02-15
|
25 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Antoine Fressancourt |
2024-02-15
|
25 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-02-29 |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot has been issued |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-02-07
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-07
|
25 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-02-07
|
25 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25.txt |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2024-02-07
|
25 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-05
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Please review and revise per the SECDIR review. |
2024-02-05
|
24 | (System) | Changed action holders to Young Lee, Kwang-koog Lee, Haomian Zheng, Oscar de Dios, Daniele Ceccarelli (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-05
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-02-01
|
24 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-01-31
|
24 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-28
|
24 | Yaron Sheffer | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-26
|
24 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2024-01-24
|
24 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-01-24
|
24 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ a single new namespace will be registered as follows: ID: yang:ietf-l1csm URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l1csm Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request. Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ a single new YANG module will be registered as follows: Name: ietf-l1csm File: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Maintained by IANA? N Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l1csm Prefix: l1csm Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published. We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-01-19
|
24 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2024-01-18
|
24 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2024-01-18
|
24 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, rdd@cert.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, rdd@cert.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-01. 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 provides a YANG Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM). This model can be utilized by a customer network controller to initiate a connectivity service request as well as to retrieve service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network controller. This YANG model is in compliance of Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-01-18
|
24 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-01-11
|
24 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-01-11
|
24 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-01-11
|
24 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-24.txt |
2024-01-11
|
24 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2024-01-11
|
24 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-29
|
23 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/u4Z_rGbHR9rX751jTEnPiam2Ar4/ |
2023-10-29
|
23 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Young Lee, Kwang-koog Lee, Haomian Zheng, Oscar de Dios, Daniele Ceccarelli (IESG state changed) |
2023-10-29
|
23 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2023-10-23
|
23 | Roman Danyliw | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2023-04-28
|
23 | Luis Contreras | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The document has 5 co-authors and 3 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus. Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (three of them being authors/contributors), with just one comment (WG last call can be found in the archive at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUVBpUPnwZspJhDtn-WMaKiglk4/). There was no objection to publication. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. The YANG data model defined in the document describes Layer 1 connectivity services with UNI access type and is consistent with the Service Attributes defined in [MEF63], with the exception of the Service Level Specification Service Attributes which are ouside the scope of this document. Proper references are included in the document. No external review is needed. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. YANGDOCTORS last call review ready with nits. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. None applicable. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured. The YANG model defined can be utilized by a customer network controller to either initiate a connectivity service request or to retrieve service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network controller. From that perspective the model is useful and assist on the automation of operations at Layer 1. The document is ready to hand off to the AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? This document is the product of the CCAMP WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model. The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the CCAMP mailing list at the time of WG last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the CCAMP mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MAra7x0UuvAturtBCjWG3HsL5S8/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/N2WZU57DjH70am454or2rSed8-c/ No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed. The CCAMP mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call. Number of authors and editors on the front page is five. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) id-nits reveals some lines (8) with weird spacing. Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The distribution seems to be right. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? One of the normative references, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types], is ready to be submitted to the IESG. The CCAMP chairs are waiting for an update to the OTN topology to move them together as a cluster, but if it will take too long, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types] will be progressed independently. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document makes requests to IANA (an URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-04-28
|
23 | Luis Contreras | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2023-04-28
|
23 | Luis Contreras | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-04-28
|
23 | Luis Contreras | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-04-28
|
23 | Luis Contreras | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-04-23
|
23 | Luis Contreras | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The document has 5 co-authors and 3 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus. Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (three of them being authors/contributors), with just one comment (WG last call can be found in the archive at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUVBpUPnwZspJhDtn-WMaKiglk4/). There was no objection to publication. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. The YANG data model defined in the document describes Layer 1 connectivity services with UNI access type and is consistent with the Service Attributes defined in [MEF63], with the exception of the Service Level Specification Service Attributes which are ouside the scope of this document. Proper references are included in the document. No external review is needed. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. YANGDOCTORS last call review ready with nits. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. None applicable. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured. The YANG model defined can be utilized by a customer network controller to either initiate a connectivity service request or to retrieve service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network controller. From that perspective the model is useful and assist on the automation of operations at Layer 1. The document is ready to hand off to the AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? This document is the product of the CCAMP WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model. The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the CCAMP mailing list at the time of WG last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the CCAMP mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MAra7x0UuvAturtBCjWG3HsL5S8/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/N2WZU57DjH70am454or2rSed8-c/ No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed. The CCAMP mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call. Number of authors and editors on the front page is five. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) id-nits reveals some lines (8) with weird spacing. Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The distribution seems to be right. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? One of the normative references, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types], is ready to be submitted to the IESG. The CCAMP chairs are waiting for an update to the OTN topology to move them together as a cluster, but if it will take too long, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types] will be progressed independently. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The document makes requests to IANA (an URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-04-03
|
23 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-23.txt |
2023-04-03
|
23 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2023-04-03
|
23 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-03
|
22 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-22.txt |
2023-04-03
|
22 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2023-04-03
|
22 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-27
|
21 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2023-03-07
|
21 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Notification list changed to luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-03-07
|
21 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd changed to Luis M. Contreras |
2023-02-02
|
21 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-21.txt |
2023-02-02
|
21 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2023-02-02
|
21 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-01
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-20.txt |
2023-02-01
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2023-02-01
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-12
|
19 | Nicolai Leymann | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann. Sent review to list. |
2022-11-16
|
19 | Adrian Farrel | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel. Sent review to list. |
2022-11-14
|
19 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-19.txt |
2022-11-14
|
19 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-11-14
|
19 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-03
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nicolai Leymann |
2022-11-03
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nicolai Leymann |
2022-11-03
|
18 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2022-11-01
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2022-11-01
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2022-10-26
|
18 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-10-26
|
18 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-10-26
|
18 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2022-10-20
|
18 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-18.txt |
2022-10-20
|
18 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-10-20
|
18 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-10
|
17 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-17.txt |
2022-07-10
|
17 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-07-10
|
17 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-16
|
16 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-12-13
|
16 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-16.txt |
2021-12-13
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-12-13
|
16 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-11-29
|
15 | Joe Clarke | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Joe Clarke. Sent review to list. |
2021-11-25
|
15 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2021-11-25
|
15 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Joe Clarke |
2021-11-25
|
15 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2021-09-08
|
15 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-15.txt |
2021-09-08
|
15 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-09-08
|
15 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-24
|
14 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-02-20
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-14.txt |
2021-02-20
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-20
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Haomian Zheng , Kwang-koog Lee , Oscar de Dios , Young Lee |
2021-02-20
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-02
|
13 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-13.txt |
2020-11-02
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-02
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kwang-koog Lee , Daniele Ceccarelli , Haomian Zheng , Oscar de Dios , Young Lee |
2020-11-02
|
13 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-18
|
12 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-12.txt |
2020-09-18
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-18
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Oscar de Dios … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Oscar de Dios , Young Lee |
2020-09-18
|
12 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-09
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-03-08
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-11.txt |
2020-03-08
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-08
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Oscar de Dios , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , Young … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Oscar de Dios , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , Young Lee |
2020-03-08
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-09
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-10.txt |
2019-09-09
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-09
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Giuseppe Fioccola , Dhruv Dhody , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-09-09
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-07
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-09.txt |
2019-03-06
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-06
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2019-03-06
|
09 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-13
|
08 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-08.txt |
2018-09-13
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-13
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-09-13
|
08 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-06
|
07 | Robert Wilton | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Robert Wilton. Sent review to list. |
2018-09-06
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Robert Wilton |
2018-09-06
|
07 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Robert Wilton |
2018-09-05
|
07 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
2018-08-30
|
07 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-07.txt |
2018-08-30
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-30
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-08-30
|
07 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-17
|
06 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-06.txt |
2018-07-17
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-07-17
|
06 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-02
|
05 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-05.txt |
2018-07-02
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-02
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-07-02
|
05 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-22
|
04 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-04.txt |
2018-06-22
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-22
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-06-22
|
04 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-21
|
03 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-03.txt |
2018-06-21
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-21
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-06-21
|
03 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-20
|
02 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-02.txt |
2018-06-20
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-20
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-06-20
|
02 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-24
|
01 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01.txt |
2018-04-24
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-24
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , Giuseppe Fioccola , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee |
2018-04-24
|
01 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-24
|
00 | Fatai Zhang | This document now replaces draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang instead of None |
2018-04-24
|
00 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-00.txt |
2018-04-24
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-04-23
|
00 | Young Lee | Set submitter to ""Y. Lee" ", replaces to draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang and sent approval email to group chairs: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-04-23
|
00 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |