Babel Information Model
draft-ietf-babel-information-model-10
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the ... (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? Informational as indicated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The Babel Information Model document provides structured data elements for a Babel implementation reporting its current state and may allow limited configuration of some such data elements. This information model can be used as a basis for creating data models under various data modeling regimes. Working Group Summary: There was continuing active discussion and improvement to the draft for an extended after the initial Working Group Last Call so no consensus judgement was made for that Last call. The list of outstanding issues was updated and then presented and reviewed at WG meeting at a number of IETF meeting, resolving many issues. Based on the discussions and consensus on issue resolution shown on the mailing list and at WG meetings, after a brief call for objections at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JLunyZA9YdXXVm7S3wxGklavcCY the draft was declared to have consensus. Document Quality: The draft has been extensively reviewed by the community of interest and is of good quality. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (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. Document Shepherd review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kgvbBpp1iCYCi6KgPx2CVLo89cs Response, which was accepted, at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/e_bMNw7KrnnaAVQNw_sZwmskL8c (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A routing review was performed. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UKxCP97gJhjF5Rln3LXIewxX2lY Initial response is here https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qSCbwgrnLvsx84ctJABKbEWcCjA Note that a separate YANG Model draft is progressing and about to enter WG Last Call. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-yang-model/ (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? No special concerns. (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, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mzwyXc_C-7YX_pZxy_9MDkuKQ4c https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qUXjl_2lYNKRCqWzu74SC4gw9S0 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures. (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 was a strong consensus among the subset of WG members that are interested in data modeling for BABEL. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The nits checker gives 7 warnings, all of which are false alarms. Six cases of "weird spacing" that are OK and one regular expression character set misinterpreted as a reference. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (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? There are normative references to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and to the Wireshark Libpcap File Format document. The rfc6126bis draft is through IETF last call and in the process of resolving IESG COMMENTs and DISCUSSes. The Wireshark Libpcap File Format document is akin to a standard of an SDO other than the IETF and is available at https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. This document does not change the status of any existing RFC. (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). This document requires no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. No IANA registries created. (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. There is no such formal language in the draft although there is some programming language-like notation in the draft. |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the ... (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? Informational as indicated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The Babel Information Model document provides structured data elements for a Babel implementation reporting its current state and may allow limited configuration of some such data elements. This information model can be used as a basis for creating data models under various data modeling regimes. Working Group Summary: There was continuing active discussion and improvement to the draft for an extended after the initial Working Group Last Call so no consensus judgement was made for that Last call. The list of outstanding issues was updated and then presented and reviewed at WG meeting at a number of IETF meeting, resolving many issues. Based on the discussions and consensus on issue resolution shown on the mailing list and at WG meetings, after a brief call for objections at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JLunyZA9YdXXVm7S3wxGklavcCY the draft was declared to have consensus. Document Quality: The draft has been extensively reviewed by the community of interest and is of good quality. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (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. Document Shepherd review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kgvbBpp1iCYCi6KgPx2CVLo89cs Response, which was accepted, at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/e_bMNw7KrnnaAVQNw_sZwmskL8c (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A routing review was performed. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UKxCP97gJhjF5Rln3LXIewxX2lY Initial response is here https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qSCbwgrnLvsx84ctJABKbEWcCjA Note that a separate YANG Model draft is progressing and about to enter WG Last Call. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-yang-model/ (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? No special concerns. (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, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mzwyXc_C-7YX_pZxy_9MDkuKQ4c https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qUXjl_2lYNKRCqWzu74SC4gw9S0 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures. (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 was a strong consensus among the subset of WG members that are interested in data modeling for BABEL. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The nits checker gives 7 warnings, all of which are false alarms. Six cases of "weird spacing" that are OK and one regular expression character set misinterpreted as a reference. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (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? There are normative references to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and to the Wireshark Libpcap File Format document. The rfc6126bis draft is through IETF last call and in the process of resolving IESG COMMENTs and DISCUSSes. The Wireshark Libpcap File Format document is akin to a standard of an SDO other than the IETF and is available at https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. This document does not change the status of any existing RFC. (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). This document requires no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. No IANA registries created. (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. There is no such formal language in the draft although there is some programming language-like notation in the draft. |
2019-10-13 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the ... (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? Informational as indicated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: The Babel Information Model document provides structured data elements for a Babel implementation reporting its current state and may allow limited configuration of some such data elements. This information model can be used as a basis for creating data models under various data modeling regimes. Working Group Summary: There was continuing active discussion and improvement to the draft for an extended after the initial Working Group Last Call so no consensus judgement was made for that Last call. The list out outstanding issues was updated and then presented and reviewed, resolving many of them, at a number of WG meeting. Based on the discussions and consensus on issue resolution shown on the mailing list and at WG meetings, after a brief call for objections at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JLunyZA9YdXXVm7S3wxGklavcCY the draft was declared to have consensus. Document Quality: The draft has been extensively reviewed by the community of interest and is of good quality. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (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. Document Shepherd review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kgvbBpp1iCYCi6KgPx2CVLo89cs response which was accepted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/e_bMNw7KrnnaAVQNw_sZwmskL8c (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A routing review was performed. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UKxCP97gJhjF5Rln3LXIewxX2lY Initial Response is here https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qSCbwgrnLvsx84ctJABKbEWcCjA Note that a separate YANG Model draft is progressing and about to enter WG Last Call. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-yang-model/ (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? No special concerns. (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, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mzwyXc_C-7YX_pZxy_9MDkuKQ4c https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qUXjl_2lYNKRCqWzu74SC4gw9S0 (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures. (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 was a strong consensus among the subset of WG members that are interested in data modeling for BABEL. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The nits checker gives 7 warnings, all of which are false alarms. Six cases of "weird spacing" that are OK and one regular expression character set misinterpreted as a reference. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (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? There are normative references to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and to the Wireshark Libpcap File Format document. The rfc6126bis draft is through IETF last call and in the process of resolving IESG COMMENTs and DISCUSSes. The Wireshark Libpcap File Format document is akin to a standard of an SDO other than the IETF and is available at https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (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. This document does not change the status of any existing RFC. (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). This document requires no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. No IANA registries created. (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. There is no such formal language in the draft although there is some programming language-like notation in the draft. |
2019-10-09 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/?q=consensus |
2019-10-09 |
10 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2019-10-09 |
10 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-10.txt |
2019-10-09 |
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-09 |
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-10-09 |
10 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-22 |
09 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-09.txt |
2019-08-22 |
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-22 |
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-08-22 |
09 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-04 |
08 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-08.txt |
2019-08-04 |
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-04 |
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-08-04 |
08 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-21 |
07 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-07.txt |
2019-07-21 |
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-21 |
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-07-21 |
07 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-20 |
06 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-105: babel Wed-1550 |
2019-07-08 |
06 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-06.txt |
2019-07-08 |
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08 |
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-07-08 |
06 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-24 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-104: babel Thu-0900 |
2019-03-10 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-03-10 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> |
2019-03-10 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd |
2019-03-05 |
05 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-05.txt |
2019-03-05 |
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-05 |
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: babel-chairs@ietf.org, Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2019-03-05 |
05 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-20 |
04 | Donald Eastlake | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2018-10-24 |
04 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-103: babel Wed-1540 |
2018-10-22 |
04 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-04.txt |
2018-10-22 |
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22 |
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2018-10-22 |
04 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-24 |
03 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. |
2018-08-27 |
03 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem |
2018-08-27 |
03 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Acee Lindem |
2018-08-27 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2018-07-17 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | Added to session: IETF-102: babel Tue-0930 |
2018-06-05 |
03 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-03.txt |
2018-06-05 |
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-05 |
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2018-06-05 |
03 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-05 |
02 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-02.txt |
2018-04-05 |
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-05 |
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2018-04-05 |
02 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-02 |
01 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-01.txt |
2018-01-02 |
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-02 |
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2018-01-02 |
01 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-03 |
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-stark-babel-information-model instead of None |
2017-07-03 |
00 | Barbara Stark | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-00.txt |
2017-07-03 |
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-03 |
00 | Barbara Stark | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Barbara Stark <barbara.stark@att.com> |
2017-07-03 |
00 | Barbara Stark | Uploaded new revision |