Skip to main content

YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol
draft-ietf-ospf-yang-29

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-09-23
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-11-02
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE
2021-11-01
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-10-27
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE
2021-10-22
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-09-07
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-07-27
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-07-27
29 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2019-10-17
29 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-29.txt
2019-10-17
29 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem)
2019-10-17
29 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-09-23
28 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>
2019-09-23
28 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
2019-09-23
28 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2019-08-30
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-08-30
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2019-08-29
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2019-08-27
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2019-08-27
28 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-08-27
28 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-08-26
28 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Martínez was marked no-response
2019-08-26
28 Amy Vezza Downref to RFC 4973 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28
2019-08-26
28 Amy Vezza Downref to RFC 1765 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28
2019-08-26
28 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-08-26
28 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2019-08-26
28 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-08-26
28 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-08-26
28 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2019-08-26
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSSes and COMMENTs.
2019-08-26
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-08-26
28 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my Discuss and Comment points!
2019-08-26
28 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-08-26
28 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-08-26
28 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-28.txt
2019-08-26
28 (System) New version approved
2019-08-26
28 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-08-26
28 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-08-25
27 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
["string" type for raw keys is intentional, and incentive to move to the
more modern key-chain model]

(2) Do we need to say …
[Ballot discuss]
["string" type for raw keys is intentional, and incentive to move to the
more modern key-chain model]

(2) Do we need to say anything about how to indicate when there are
discontinuities for the various "counter" types?
2019-08-25
27 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-08-23
27 Alvaro Retana Acee mentioned the next revision will have an updated Security Considerations.
2019-08-23
27 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-08-22
27 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-08-22
27 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-08-22
27 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-27.txt
2019-08-22
27 (System) New version approved
2019-08-22
27 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-08-22
27 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-08-22
26 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-08-22
26 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.7

Why are the neighbor configuration and operational state under different subtrees here? I thought one of the goals of NMDA …
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2.7

Why are the neighbor configuration and operational state under different subtrees here? I thought one of the goals of NMDA was to avoid this.

* Section 2.9

Is there a reason why the clear operation for neighbors is defined using an RPC operation instead of simply an action under the relevant interface?

* Meta comment

NMDA is misspelt as NDMA in several places throughout the document including the abstract and the introduction. Suggest a global search and replace.


Editorial
========

* Under ospfv2-lsa-option

s/Baes idenity/Base identity/
2019-08-22
26 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-08-22
26 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I support Roman's and Ben's DISCUSSes.
2019-08-22
26 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-08-21
26 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
(1) Can we check whether it's okay to use the yang "string" type for raw
cryptographic keys (e.g., ospfv2-key, ospfv3-key)?  My understanding was …
[Ballot discuss]
(1) Can we check whether it's okay to use the yang "string" type for raw
cryptographic keys (e.g., ospfv2-key, ospfv3-key)?  My understanding was
that yang strings were limited to human-readable, but that the crypto
keys could be raw binary values.

(2) Do we need to say anything about how to indicate when there are
discontinuities for the various "counter" types?
2019-08-21
26 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I'm happy to see the discussion around Roman's Discuss.

Section 1

  YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950] is a data definition language …
[Ballot comment]
I'm happy to see the discussion around Roman's Discuss.

Section 1

  YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950] is a data definition language used to define
  the contents of a conceptual data store that allows networked devices
  to be managed using NETCONF [RFC6241].  YANG is proving relevant
  beyond its initial confines, as bindings to other interfaces (e.g.,
  ReST) and encodings other than XML (e.g., JSON) are being defined.

This text feels a bit stale at this point.

Section 2

  model varies among router vendors.  Differences are observed in terms
  of how the protocol instance is tied to the routing domain, how
  multiple protocol instances are be instantiated among others.

nit: the grammar here is a bit odd, with the comma suggesting the start
of a list but no "and" present.

Section 2.2

  The ospf module is intended to match to the vendor specific OSPF
  configuration construct that is identified by the local identifier
  'name'.

I don't really understand what this is intended to mean.

Section 2.7

hello-timer in the module claims to be a rt-types:timer-value-seconds16
but shows up in the tree(s) as a uint32.
Similarly, the wait-itmer is a rt-types:timer-value-seconds32, which
also shows up in the tree(s) as a uint32, which is perhaps more
reasonable but perhaps not entirely accurate.
Other 'timer' leafs seem to have similar issues.

Section 3

    feature ospfv2-authentication-trailer {
      description
        "Use OSPFv2 authentication trailer for OSPFv2
          authentication.";

Is the feature for "use" or "support for"?
(Similarly for the ospfv3 authentication features.)

    identity ospfv2-lsa-option {
      description
        "Baes idenity for OSPFv2 LSA option flags.";

nit: "Base"

    identity v2-p-bit {
      base ospfv2-lsa-option;
      description
        "Only used in type-7 LSA. When set, an NSSA
          border router should translate the type-7 LSA
          to a type-5 LSA.";

There seem to be a few "identity -bit" stanzas whose description do
not mention the named bit specifically (but many that do).  Do we want
to be consistent about doing so?  (Likewise for -flag.)

    grouping tlv {
      description
        "Type-Length-Value (TLV)";
      leaf type {
        type uint16;
        description "TLV type.";
      }
      leaf length {
        type uint16;
        description "TLV length (octets).";
      }
      leaf value {
        type yang:hex-string;
        description "TLV value.";

Is there a way to apply a constraint so the 'length' matches the
hext-string's length?

    grouping router-capabilities-tlv {

The various descriptions hereunder could perhaps benefit from section
references, as, e.g., two nodes named "informational-capabilities" may
otherwise require some effort to distinguish.  Well, aside from the fact
that one is currently listed as "capabilitiess" with two esses, which
seems unlikely to be intended.

    grouping ospf-router-lsa-bits {
      container rputer-bits {

s/rputer/router/?

        container te-opaque {
          [...]
          container link-tlv {
            description "Describes a singel link, and it is constructed
            of a set of Sub-TLVs.";

s/singel/single/

    grouping ospfv3-lsa-external {
      [...]
      leaf referenced-link-state-id {
        type yang:dotted-quad;

RFC 5340 section 2.2 implies that the Link State ID is going to be a
32-bit identifier that need not be represented as dotted-quad, as it
does not have addressing semantics.  (dotted-quad seems to be used for
Link-State-ID-shaped things elsewhere, too, though the preferred form
may be the union of dotted-quad and uint32.)

    grouping lsa-common {
      description
          "Common fields for OSPF LSA representation.";
      leaf decode-completed {
        type boolean;
        description
          "The OSPF LSA body was successfully decoded other than
            unknown TLVs. Unknown LSAs types and OSPFv2 unknown
            opaque LSA types are not decoded. Additionally,
            malformed LSAs are generally not accepted and are
            not be in the Link State Database.";

nit: "are not be" is not grammatical.

    grouping lsa-key {
      description
        "OSPF LSA key.";

This could maybe benefit from a more descriptive description; is this a
sort or lookup key, for example?

      container database {
        description "Container for per AS-scope LSA statistics.";
        list as-scope-lsa-type {
          [...]
          leaf lsa-cksum-sum {
            type uint32;
            description
              "The sum of the LSA checksums of the LSA type.";

[It's not entirely clear to me why this sum-of-checksums is a useful
thing to track, but it may not be this document's role to do so.
Though, perhaps we do need to say if the sum is computed as integers
modulo 2**32.]

      leaf transmit-delay {
        type uint16;
        units seconds;
        description
          "Estimated time needed to transmit Link State Update
            (LSU) packets on the interface (seconds). LSAs have
            their age incremented by this amount on advertised
            on the interface. A sample value would be 1 second.";

nit: "on advertised on" does not seem grammatical.

      leaf lls {
      [...]
      container ttl-security {

Should these have a default value?

          case ospfv3-auth-ipsec {
            when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../../rt:type, "
              +  "'ospfv3')" {
              description "Applied to OSPFv3 only.";
            }
            if-feature ospfv3-authentication-ipsec;
            leaf sa {
                type string;

I don't see RFC 4552 talking about names for SAs; where would this be
discussed (and, are they guaranteed to be human-readable)?

          leaf poll-interval {
            type uint16;
            units seconds;
            description
              "Neighbor poll interval (seconds) for sending OSPF
                hello packets to discover the neighbor on NBMA
                networks. This interval dictates the granularity for
                discovery of new neighbors. A sample would be 2 minutes
                for a legacy Packet Data Network (PDN) X.25 network.";

Maybe "2 minutes (120 seconds)" since the units are seconds?

      container preference {
        description
          "Route preference configuration In many
            implementations, preference is referred to as
            administrative distance.";

nit: missing sentence break?

For the spf- and lsa-logs, do we require that the 'id' is assigned in
any particular order, or do we just rely on the included timestamp(s)
for any time-ordering required by the consumer?

    grouping notification-neighbor {
      [...]
      leaf neighbor-ip-addr {
        type yang:dotted-quad;
        description "Neighbor address.";

neighbors can only be identified by IPv4 addresses?

      leaf packet-source {
        type yang:dotted-quad;

packet sources, too? (multiple times)

      description
        "This notification is sent when aa neighbor
          state change is detected.";

nit: s/aa/a/

Section 4

  Additionally, local specificationn of OSPF authentication keys and
  the associated authentication algorithm is supported for legacy
  implementations that do not support key-chains [RFC8177] for legacy
  implementations that do not support key-chains.  It is RECOMMENDED
  that implementations migrate to key-chains due the seamless support
  of key and algorithm rollover, as well as, the encryption of key
  using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Key Wrap Padding
  Algorithm [RFC5649].

(Roman caught the nits, so I won't duplicate that.)
I expected to see something about keeping the actual key material
secret, as well.
2019-08-21
26 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-08-21
26 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-08-21
26 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-08-21
26 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-08-21
26 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2019-08-21
26 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2019-08-21
26 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to say "The field 'version' is used to …
[Ballot comment]
Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to say "The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF LSA version and is mandatory."

I did not review this entire document but I'm balloting based on the Gen-ART review.
2019-08-21
26 Alissa Cooper Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper
2019-08-21
26 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
I did not review this document myself but I'm balloting based on the Gen-ART review.
2019-08-21
26 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-08-20
26 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-08-20
26 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
A “discuss to discuss”.  Per the convention outlined in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, thank you for clearly noting the implication of not securing these nodes …
[Ballot discuss]
A “discuss to discuss”.  Per the convention outlined in https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, thank you for clearly noting the implication of not securing these nodes properly. 

Furthermore, following the convention, I would have expected Section 4 to have enumerated the sensitive writeable/creatable/deletable data nodes; and the sensitive readable nodes individually.  For a model this large, I can imagine that individual enumeration would be a long list. 

In the case of read operations, the text opens with saying that “some of the readable data nodes ...” and later says “The exposure of the ... LSDB will expose the detailed topology ...”.  Can you help me understand which part of ietf-ospf.yang is the LSDB and which parts refer to “some of the readable nodes”?  Is there are a difference, or is this text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control? 

A related line of questioning for the write operation.  The text opens with saying that “There are a number of data nodes defined in ietf-ospf.yang ... [and that] [w]rite operations ... to these nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on the network operations ... [and] ... the ability to modify OSPF configuration ...” is problematic.  Can you help me understand which parts of the text is the “OSPF configuration” vs. “there are number of data nodes ...”?  If there isn’t a different, is the text asserting that all parts of the modules are sensitive and need access control?
2019-08-20
26 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
(1) Idnits returned a seemingly valid few reference issues:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1765

  ** Downref: …
[Ballot comment]
(1) Idnits returned a seemingly valid few reference issues:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1765

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 4973

(2) Editorial
-- Section 4.  Isn’t RFC8341, “the Network Configuration Access Control Model” rather than the “NETCONF access control model”?

-- Section 4.  Typo.  s/specificationn/specification/

-- Section 4.  Remove the duplicate instance of the phrase “for legacy implementations that do not support key-chains”.

-- Section 4.  Typo.  s/The OSPF YANG module support/the OSPF YANG module supports/
2019-08-20
26 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2019-08-20
26 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2019-08-19
26 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Just two quick questions about references:

- Is there no reference for mtu-ignore (see section 2.4)? If not, can you further describe what …
[Ballot comment]
Just two quick questions about references:

- Is there no reference for mtu-ignore (see section 2.4)? If not, can you further describe what exactly would be disabled?

- Also is there no reference for OSPF Non-Stop Routing (NSR) (see section 2.4)...?

And one more comment:

In the interface-common-config part (p76 and p77) you provide example or default values for various intervals and delays. Where does those values come from? Would it be possible to provide a reference/RFC that specifies actual default values? Especially when you specify something normatively ("The value MUST be greater than 'hello-interval'.") it would be good to provide a reference!  Do any specification maybe also specify min and max value? If so, you should mention them here as well! If not would it make sense to recommend min and max values? If possible I would strongly support to describe min and max values as well!
2019-08-19
26 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-08-07
26 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26.txt
2019-08-07
26 (System) New version approved
2019-08-07
26 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem
2019-08-07
26 Yingzhen Qu Uploaded new revision
2019-08-05
25 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-08-05
25 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-25.txt
2019-08-05
25 (System) New version approved
2019-08-05
25 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-08-05
25 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-08-01
24 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-07-30
24 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-22
2019-07-30
24 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2019-07-30
24 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-07-30
24 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2019-07-30
24 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2019-07-29
24 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-07-29
24 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-24.txt
2019-07-29
24 (System) New version approved
2019-07-29
24 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-07-29
24 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-07-23
23 Ladislav Lhotka Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka. Sent review to list.
2019-07-22
23 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2019-07-18
23 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ravi Singh.
2019-07-17
23 Erik Kline Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Erik Kline. Sent review to list.
2019-07-17
23 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2019-07-17
23 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2019-07-17
23 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2019-07-16
23 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2019-07-16
23 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23. 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-ospf
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospf
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-ospf
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospf
Prefix: ospf
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
2019-07-15
23 Stefan Santesson Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stefan Santesson. Sent review to list.
2019-07-15
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2019-07-15
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2019-07-15
23 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2019-07-15
23 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2019-07-03
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2019-07-03
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2019-07-02
23 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2019-07-02
23 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2019-07-02
23 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2019-07-02
23 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Data Model for OSPF 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 OSPF 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 2019-07-17. 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 OSPF.  The model is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC
  7950
and conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
  (NDMA) as described in RFC 8342.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-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:
    rfc4973: OSPF-xTE: Experimental Extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering (Experimental - Independent Submission Editor stream)
    rfc1765: OSPF Database Overflow (Experimental - IETF stream)



2019-07-02
23 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2019-07-02
23 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka
2019-07-02
23 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was changed
2019-07-02
23 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2019-07-01
23 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-07-01
23 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-23.txt
2019-07-01
23 (System) New version approved
2019-07-01
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-07-01
23 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-06-24
22 Alvaro Retana Acee addressed the first part of the review, but there are some remaining major comments.
2019-06-24
22 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-06-22
22 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-06-22
22 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-22.txt
2019-06-22
22 (System) New version approved
2019-06-22
22 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-06-22
22 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-06-05
21 Alvaro Retana === AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LKvR2rfkPHJui_GMRerIdDNHkug
2019-06-05
21 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2019-06-04
21 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
2019-06-04
21 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2019-01-27
21 Acee Lindem
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?

The document is targeting Standard Track. It is the proper type of RFC as
the document defines a standard YANG model for configuration and operation
of OSPF.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.


This document defines a YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

There is nothing particular worth noting. The document is in the WG for a while
and had a lot of iterations to accommodate the required changes.
Multiple synchronizations were done especially with the IS-IS YANG model work but not
limited to.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

The document has been reviewed by a YANG doctor and his comments have been
addressed in the latest revisions.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the responsible 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 to
the IESG.

The shepherd has done a deep review of the YANG model and has provided
a list of comments to the authors. All the comments have been addressed as part
of the latest version.

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

No concern


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

No


(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.

No concern

(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.

There is no disclosed IPR

(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 a strong consensus including people from various affiliations.

(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.

No nits found

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

A YANG doctor review has already 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?

draft-ietf-bfd-yang is cited as a normative reference. This document is in the RFC Editor queue
with a MISSREF to draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. These documents are still WG documents.


(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.

There is no real downward reference.
However if the draft-ietf-bfd-yang stays stuck because of the MISSREF, draft-ietf-bfd-yang will become a downward reference.


(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.

No need.

(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.

2019-01-27
21 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2019-01-27
21 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2019-01-27
21 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2019-01-27
21 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2019-01-24
21 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21.txt
2019-01-24
21 (System) New version approved
2019-01-24
21 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2019-01-24
21 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2019-01-21
20 Stephane Litkowski
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?

The document is targeting Standard Track. It is the proper type of RFC as
the document defines a standard YANG model for configuration and operation
of OSPF.

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.


This document defines a YANG model for configuration and operation of OSPF.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

There is nothing particular worth noting. The document is in the WG for a while
and had a lot of iterations to accommodate the required changes.
Multiple synchronizations were done especially with the IS-IS YANG model work but not
limited to.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

The document has been reviewed by a YANG doctor and his comments have been
addressed in the latest revisions.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the responsible 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 to
the IESG.

The shepherd has done a deep review of the YANG model and has provided
a list of comments to the authors. All the comments have been addressed as part
of the latest version.

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

No concern


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

No


(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.

No concern

(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.

There is no disclosed IPR

(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 a strong consensus including people from various affiliations.

(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.

No nits found

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

A YANG doctor review has already 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?

draft-ietf-bfd-yang is cited as a normative reference. This document is in the RFC Editor queue
with a MISSREF to draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. These documents are still WG documents.


(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.

There is no real downward reference.
However if the draft-ietf-bfd-yang stays stuck because of the MISSREF, draft-ietf-bfd-yang will become a downward reference.


(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.

No need.

(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.

2018-12-19
20 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-20.txt
2018-12-19
20 (System) New version approved
2018-12-19
20 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-12-19
20 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-12-10
19 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-19.txt
2018-12-10
19 (System) New version approved
2018-12-10
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-12-10
19 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-12-10
18 Stephane Litkowski Changed document writeup
2018-11-27
18 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-18.txt
2018-11-27
18 (System) New version approved
2018-11-27
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-11-27
18 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-10-15
17 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
2018-10-15
17 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2018-10-15
17 Acee Lindem Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-10-15
17 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-09-12
17 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17.txt
2018-09-12
17 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-17.txt
2018-09-12
17 (System) New version approved
2018-09-12
17 (System) New version approved
2018-09-12
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem
2018-09-12
17 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-09-11
16 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-16.txt
2018-09-11
16 (System) New version approved
2018-09-11
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Ing-Wher Chen , Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem
2018-09-11
16 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-08-29
15 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-15.txt
2018-08-29
15 (System) New version approved
2018-08-29
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-08-29
15 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-08-28
14 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-14.txt
2018-08-28
14 (System) New version approved
2018-08-28
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-08-28
14 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-07-26
13 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-13.txt
2018-07-26
13 (System) New version approved
2018-07-26
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-07-26
13 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-07-05
12 Christian Hopps Added to session: IETF-102: lsr  Mon-0930
2018-07-02
12 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-12.txt
2018-07-02
12 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-07-02
12 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2018-04-03
11 Acee Lindem New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-11.txt
2018-04-03
11 (System) New version approved
2018-04-03
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-04-03
11 Acee Lindem Uploaded new revision
2018-03-20
10 Christian Hopps Added to session: IETF-101: lsr  Wed-0930
2018-03-03
10 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-10.txt
2018-03-03
10 (System) New version approved
2018-03-03
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2018-03-03
10 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2018-02-28
09 Cindy Morgan Notification list changed to none
2018-02-28
09 Cindy Morgan Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF)
2017-12-06
09 Ladislav Lhotka Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka. Sent review to list.
2017-11-09
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka
2017-11-09
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ladislav Lhotka
2017-11-08
09 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2017-10-30
09 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-09.txt
2017-10-30
09 (System) New version approved
2017-10-30
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2017-10-30
09 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2017-07-02
08 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-08.txt
2017-07-02
08 (System) New version approved
2017-07-02
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Ing-Wher Chen , Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem , Derek Yeung
2017-07-02
08 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2017-03-13
07 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-07.txt
2017-03-13
07 (System) New version approved
2017-03-13
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Derek Yeung , Zhaohui Zhang , "I. Chen" , Yingzhen Qu , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem
2017-03-13
07 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2016-10-31
06 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-06.txt
2016-10-31
06 (System) New version approved
2016-10-31
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Derek Yeung" , "Dean Bogdanovic" , "Zhaohui Zhang" , "Kiran Koushik" , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, "Yingzhen Qu"
2016-10-31
05 Derek Yeung Uploaded new revision
2016-09-25
05 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-07-07
05 Yingzhen Qu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-05.txt
2016-03-21
04 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-04.txt
2015-10-19
03 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03.txt
2015-09-02
02 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-02.txt
2015-07-06
01 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-01.txt
2015-03-09
00 Derek Yeung New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-yang-00.txt