draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-06

(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?

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page. This draft
  specifies the standard YANG model for the Babel routing protocol, a
  routing protocol that has been approved as a Proposed standard and
  is now in the RFC Editor's queue (draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis).
 
(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:

  This document defines a data model for the Babel routing protocol.
  The data model is defined using the YANG data modeling language.

Working Group Summary:

  This YANG model is based on Babel drafts that have been approved as
  Proposed Standards (the base protocol and security drafts) and the
  Babel information model in draft-ietf-babel-information-model. This
  draft was originally last called in November of 2019 and approved
  based on the mailing list support and November IETF meeting
  discussion:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/QGxLY-QsKnQClovMqi2eVVCbIjo/
  However, shortly thereafter some questions aroze on the
  information and yang models. These were discussed over the ensuing
  months with the conclution that no significant YANG changes were
  required. A cofirmatory WG LC extension was issued resulting in
  further support and no opposition so consensus was confirmated as
  follows:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/51ghA03etPG9UdbtSeghPDVR2qk/

Document Quality:

  The document is of good quality. An early YANG docotor review was
  done and the comments were resolved:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5CVaLWJegUC5nrN50E-2CNM1n60/

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Area Director: Martin Vigoureux

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

  The draft was reviewed a couple of times by the Document Shepherd
  who is not a YANG expert. No problems were found.

(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.

  An early YANG doctor review was performed.

(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 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/51ghA03etPG9UdbtSeghPDVR2qk/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kTC_mhW1qk7sUUCMmqA3Gw6uECo/

(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 disclsoure filed on this draft.

(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 solid WG consensus for this document.

(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.

  There are references to older vesion of two draft that will be
  updated the next time the draft is updated.

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

  Early YANG doctors review comments have been resolved. Datatracker
  shows a nice green ying-yang symbol for the draft.

(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?

  No. All references are to RFCs except for the references to
  draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and draft-ietf-babel-information-model
  both of which drafts are approved and in the RFC Editor's queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

  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.

  IANA Considerations look good, just the usual assignments for a
  YANG module.

(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.

  This document does not create any IANA registties.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

  There is YANG in this draft. It is automatically reviewed by the
  draft submission process and passes as indicated by a green
  yin-yang symbol by the draft.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

  The YANG module complies with NMDA and has been checked.

draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-06

(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?

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page. This draft
  specifies the standard YANG model for the Babel routing protocol, a
  routing protocol that has been approved as a Proposed standard and
  is now in the RFC Editor's queue (draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis).
 
(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:

  This document defines a data model for the Babel routing protocol.
  The data model is defined using the YANG data modeling language.

Working Group Summary:

  This YANG model is based on Babel drafts that have been approved as
  Proposed Standards (the base protocol and security drafts) and the
  Babel information model in draft-ietf-babel-information-model. This
  draft was originally last called in November of 2019 and approved
  based on the mailing list support and November IETF meeting
  discussion:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/QGxLY-QsKnQClovMqi2eVVCbIjo/
  However, shortly thereafter some questions aroze on the
  information and yang models. These were discussed over the ensuing
  months with the conclution that no significant YANG changes were
  required. A cofirmatory WG LC extension was issued resulting in
  further support and no opposition so consensus was confirmated as
  follows:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/51ghA03etPG9UdbtSeghPDVR2qk/

Document Quality:

  The document is of good quality. An early YANG docotor review was
  done and the comments were resolved:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5CVaLWJegUC5nrN50E-2CNM1n60/

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Area Director: Martin Vigoureux

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.

  The draft was reviewed a couple of times by the Document Shepherd
  who is not a YANG expert. No problems were found.

(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.

  An early YANG doctor review was performed.

(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 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/51ghA03etPG9UdbtSeghPDVR2qk/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kTC_mhW1qk7sUUCMmqA3Gw6uECo/

(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 disclsoure filed on this draft.

(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 solid WG consensus for this document.

(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.

  There are references to older vesion of two draft that will be
  updated the next time the draft is updated.

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

  Early YANG doctors review comments have been resolved. Datatracker
  shows a nice green ying-yang symbol for the draft.

(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?

  No. All references are to RFCs except for the references to
  draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and draft-ietf-babel-information-model
  both of which drafts are approved and in the RFC Editor's queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

  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.

  IANA Considerations look good, just the usual assignments for a
  YANG module.

(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.

  This document does not create any IANA registties.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

  There is YANG in this draft. It is automatically reviewed by the
  draft submission process and passes as indicated by a green
  yin-yang symbol by the draft.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342?

  The YANG module complies with NMDA and has been checked.