A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-11-16
|
24 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2023-10-31
|
24 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from IESG |
2023-10-16
|
24 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24.txt |
2023-10-16
|
24 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-10-16
|
24 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-13
|
23 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from AUTH48 |
2023-10-13
|
23 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.txt |
2023-10-13
|
23 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-10-13
|
23 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-02
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2023-08-03
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-06-06
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG |
2023-06-06
|
22 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22.txt |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-06
|
21 | Bo Wu | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-31
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-05-31
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-05-31
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-05-30
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-05-30
|
21 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-05-30
|
21 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-05-30
|
21 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-05-30
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-05-30
|
21 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-05-30
|
21 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2023-05-30
|
21 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-05-30
|
21 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Jean Mahoney | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Tim Evens was marked no-response |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2023-05-25
|
21 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-25
|
21 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-21.txt |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-05-25
|
21 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-25
|
20 | (System) | Changed action holders to Acee Lindem, Yingzhen Qu (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-25
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2023-05-25
|
20 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a well written document! |
2023-05-25
|
20 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-05-25
|
20 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thank you for getting another IETF YANG module published. No comments/nits. Regards, Rob |
2023-05-25
|
20 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Boilerplate This document does not use RFC2119 keywords, but contains the RFC8174 … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Boilerplate This document does not use RFC2119 keywords, but contains the RFC8174 boilerplate. ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `master`; alternatives might be `active`, `central`, `initiator`, `leader`, `main`, `orchestrator`, `parent`, `primary`, `server` ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-05-24
|
20 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-20.txt |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-05-24
|
20 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-24
|
19 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 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-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 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). Special thanks to Jeff Tantsura for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus **but** it lacks the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS ## Abstract Should "data model" appear in `RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB` ? ## Section 3.2 Isn't the use of inet:ip-address (i.e., including the zone) redundant with outgoing-interface ? Strongly suggest using inet:ip-address-no-zone |
2023-05-24
|
19 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2023-05-23
|
19 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-05-23
|
19 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-05-23
|
19 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-05-23
|
19 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-19.txt |
2023-05-23
|
19 | Acee Lindem | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Acee Lindem) |
2023-05-23
|
19 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-22
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Chris Lonvick for the SECDIR review. |
2023-05-22
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-05-22
|
18 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. Just one small comment. In this text: description "The metric is a … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this document. Just one small comment. In this text: description "The metric is a numeric value indicating the cost of the route from the perspective of the routing protocol installing the route. In general, routes with a lower metric installed by the same routing protocol are lower cost to reach and are preferable to routes with a higher metric. However, metrics from different routing protocols are not directly comparable."; I think you can strike “directly” — they’re simply not comparable, right? Directly or otherwise? |
2023-05-22
|
18 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-05-22
|
19 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-05-21
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### S5 * Based on the description of next-hop preference field and the default value being "1" I find myself wondering what happens if the preference is set to "0". It's numerically lower, so should be preferred? |
2023-05-21
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-05-18
|
18 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-05-15
|
18 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2023-05-15
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-05-10
|
18 | Jeff Tantsura | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2023-05-09
|
18 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Murray Kucherawy has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
2023-05-09
|
18 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Should the "Other" flag on the WG status be cleared or is there something outstanding? |
2023-05-09
|
18 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-05-04
|
18 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18.txt |
2023-05-04
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-05-04
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu |
2023-05-04
|
18 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-04
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu |
2023-05-04
|
18 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-04
|
17 | Jim Guichard | Telechat date has been changed to 2023-05-25 from 2023-06-08 |
2023-05-04
|
17 | Martin Björklund | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Martin Björklund. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-03
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2023-05-03
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-06-08 |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-05-02
|
17 | Jim Guichard | 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 … 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? This draft has been in the WG for a long time and there was consensus of publication. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. There were some discussions of terminology and being consistent with RFC8349. 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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document augments RFC 8349 with some industry well-recognized RIB entries, and there are proprietary implementations of the same content defined in this document. 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. No. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 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. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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? The YANG module and the example defined in this document have been verified by the tools suggested, and it complies with RFC 8342. 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. The example in appendix B has been verified as XML and JSON. 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. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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. There is no IPR filed against this document. 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. There are two authors on this document and they both have been contributing to this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No remaining I-D nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? NA. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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). The IANA considerations look good to the shepherd. 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. N/A – only standard YANG registries are needed. |
2023-05-01
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-17.txt |
2023-05-01
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2023-05-01
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-01
|
16 | Zhaohui Zhang | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-01
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-04-29
|
16 | Chris Lonvick | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Sent review to list. |
2023-04-28
|
16 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16.txt |
2023-04-28
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-04-28
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu |
2023-04-28
|
16 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2023-04-27
|
15 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-15.txt |
2023-04-27
|
15 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2023-04-27
|
15 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-26
|
14 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2023-04-26
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-04-26
|
14 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14. 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-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions 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-rib-extension URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or 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-rib-extension File: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Maintained by IANA? N Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension Prefix: rib-ext 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 Functions 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. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2023-04-25
|
14 | Niclas Comstedt | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Niclas Comstedt was rejected |
2023-04-22
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-04-21
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Tim Evens |
2023-04-20
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2023-04-20
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2023-04-18
|
14 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-05-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RIB Extension YANG Data Model) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'RIB Extension YANG Data Model' 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 2023-05-01. 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 A Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their corresponding administrative data and operational state. RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each route as well as additional attributes. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Last call was requested |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-14.txt |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2023-04-17
|
14 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-17
|
13 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-13.txt |
2023-04-17
|
13 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2023-04-17
|
13 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-17
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-04-17
|
12 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-03-29
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2022-10-30
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-10-30
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | 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 … 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? This draft has been in the WG for a long time and there was consensus of publication. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. There were some discussions of terminology and being consistent with RFC8349. 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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document augments RFC 8349 with some industry well-recognized RIB entries, and there are proprietary implementations of the same content defined in this document. 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. No. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 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. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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? The YANG module and the example defined in this document have been verified by the tools suggested, and it complies with RFC 8342. 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. The example in appendix B has been verified as XML and JSON. 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. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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. There is no IPR filed against this document. 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. There are two authors on this document and they both have been contributing to this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No remaining I-D nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? NA. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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). The IANA considerations look good to the shepherd. 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. N/A – only standard YANG registries are needed. |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | 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 … 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? This draft has been in the WG for a long time and there was consensus of publication. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. There were some discussions of terminology and being consistent with RFC8349. 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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document augments RFC 8349 with some industry well-recognized RIB entries, and there are proprietary implementations of the same content defined in this document. 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. No. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 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. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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? The YANG module and the example defined in this document have been verified by the tools suggested, and it complies with RFC 8342. 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. The example in appendix B has been verified as XML and JSON. 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. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? No. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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. There is no IPR filed against this document. 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. There are two authors on this document and they both have been contributing to this document. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No remaining I-D nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? NA. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them. No. 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? No. 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). The IANA considerations look good to the shepherd. 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. N/A – only standard YANG registries are needed. |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Notification list changed to jefftant.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-28
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Document shepherd changed to Jeff Tantsura |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-12.txt |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2022-10-21
|
12 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-09
|
11 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-11.txt |
2022-05-09
|
11 | Yingzhen Qu | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2022-05-09
|
11 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-02
|
10 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-04-18
|
10 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-10.txt |
2022-04-18
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2022-04-18
|
10 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-17
|
09 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-09.txt |
2021-10-17
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2021-10-17
|
09 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-23
|
08 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-08.txt |
2021-04-23
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2021-04-23
|
08 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-22
|
07 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-07.txt |
2021-04-22
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2021-04-22
|
07 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-15
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli. |
2021-04-14
|
06 | Martin Björklund | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Martin Björklund. Sent review to list. |
2021-03-26
|
06 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund |
2021-03-26
|
06 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Björklund |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Emmanuel Baccelli |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Emmanuel Baccelli |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Jeff Tantsura | Pre WGLC reviews have been initiated, the document will progress after reviews are done and comments have been addressed |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Jeff Tantsura | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2021-03-25
|
06 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2021-02-03
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-06.txt |
2021-02-03
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yingzhen Qu) |
2021-02-03
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-18
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-05.txt |
2020-09-18
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-18
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu |
2020-09-18
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-25
|
04 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt |
2020-06-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem |
2020-06-25
|
04 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-12
|
03 | Christian Hopps | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Christian Hopps. Sent review to list. |
2020-05-30
|
03 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Christian Hopps |
2020-05-30
|
03 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Christian Hopps |
2020-05-29
|
03 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS |
2020-03-09
|
03 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-03.txt |
2020-03-09
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Yingzhen Qu |
2020-03-09
|
03 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-08
|
02 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-02.txt |
2019-09-08
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-08
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem |
2019-09-08
|
02 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-10
|
01 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01.txt |
2019-03-10
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-10
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem |
2019-03-10
|
01 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-05
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | This document now replaces draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend instead of None |
2019-03-05
|
00 | Yingzhen Qu | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-00.txt |
2019-03-05
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-03-05
|
00 | Yingzhen Qu | Set submitter to "Yingzhen Qu ", replaces to draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend and sent approval email to group chairs: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-03-05
|
00 | Yingzhen Qu | Uploaded new revision |