Skip to main content

YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-10-15
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-09-04
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-07-27
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from MISSREF
2019-08-19
17 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2019-08-19
17 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Sarah Banks was marked no-response
2018-08-10
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-08-10
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2018-08-10
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2018-08-09
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-08-09
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2018-08-09
17 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-08-09
17 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-08-06
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-08-06
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-08-06
17 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2018-08-06
17 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-08-06
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2018-08-05
17 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-08-02
17 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot comment]
Thank you for your patience and continued discussion as we worked to resolve my DISCUSS point!
2018-08-02
17 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-08-02
17 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-08-02
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-08-02
17 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17.txt
2018-08-02
17 (System) New version approved
2018-08-02
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-08-02
17 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-07-19
16 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Looking forward to the discussion of my original DISCUSS in NETMOD. Here it was:

I will apologize in advance because this document may …
[Ballot comment]
Looking forward to the discussion of my original DISCUSS in NETMOD. Here it was:

I will apologize in advance because this document may be sort of a casualty of this DISCUSS. I should have raised my point below at least two years ago if not four years ago when the first iana-* YANG module was registered, but the thought did not occur to me until now.

It gives me some pause to see the name "iana" embedded in the file name, module name, namespace, and prefix of the module being defined in Sec. 2.12. I realize there is precedent here, but I question whether tying these kinds of modules specifically to IANA as the protocol parameter registry operator by name puts them on the most stable deployment footing under all possible circumstances. I am personally pleased as punch with the service we get from IANA, but that doesn't mean "IANA" will always be the name of the registry operator. The more modules that get created with this embedding, the more of them that may need to change in the unlikely event that the name of the registry operator changes. Lots of RFCs would need to change too, but embedding the name extends the potential problem to the modules themselves.

It wasn't clear to me whether there is some ops-area-wide convention around the embedding of "iana" in the names of modules to be maintained by IANA. I don't see this specifically referenced in RFC 7950 or RFC 6020. So I'd like to discuss whether a different naming convention could be established and used in this document and others going forward.

---

COMMENT:

Some further questions on Sec. 2.12:

Looking back at the other RFCs that have defined YANG modules to be maintained by IANA (7224, 7317, 8294, 8348), they use two different postal addresses for ICANN. Why? Furthermore, is "ICANN" really the right contact name, or should it be PTI?
2018-07-19
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-07-05
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-07-05
16 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-07-05
16 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-07-04
16 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2018-07-04
16 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374



COMMENTS
S 2.1.4.
>              Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control …
[Ballot comment]
Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D6374



COMMENTS
S 2.1.4.
>              Minimum TTL of incoming BFD control packets.

>  2.1.4.  MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels

>      For MPLS-TE tunnels, BFD is configured under the MPLS-TE tunnel since
>      the desired failure detection parameters is a property of the MPLS-TE

"parameters are"


S 2.8.

>  2.8.  BFD over LAG hierarchy

>      A "lag" node is added under the "bfd" node in control-plane-protocol.
>      The configuration and operational state data for each BFD LAG session
>      is under this "lag" node.

There seems to be a lot of replication (e.g., number of sessions). Is
it possible to somehow refactor this so that's common?
2018-07-04
16 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2018-07-04
16 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-07-04
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2018-07-04
16 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
Don't panic, this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear, but I think it important for interoperability.

In multiple places, you have:
  …
[Ballot discuss]
Don't panic, this should be an easy DISCUSS to clear, but I think it important for interoperability.

In multiple places, you have:
            +--ro number-of-sessions?
            +--ro number-of-sessions-up?
            +--ro number-of-sessions-down?
            +--ro number-of-sessions-admin-down?

I'm a little confused by the meaning of the counters, and didn't see them clearly defined anywhere. Apologies if I missed it...

Are "number-of-sessions-admin-down" included in "number-of-sessions-down"?
Is 'number-of-sessions' always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' + 'number-of-sessions-down', or is it always equal to 'number-of-sessions-up' + 'number-of-sessions-down' + 'number-of-sessions-admin-down', or are there other cases?

E.g: I have created 10 sessions (because I have 10 interfaces). 5 of them are down because there is no peer, 3 of them I've configured to be down (admin down), and so 2 of them are up.

What should be in each of:
number-of-sessions?
number-of-sessions-up?
number-of-sessions-down?
number-of-sessions-admin-down?
2018-07-04
16 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you.

I also had a few minor nits:
Nits:
Section 1:
"The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you.

I also had a few minor nits:
Nits:
Section 1:
"The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) Network Management Datastore Architecture [RFC8342]. "
The Department of Redundancy Department called and wants some of their words back please :-)

Section 2:
"Since BFD is used for liveliness detection of various forwarding
  paths, there is no uniform key to identify a BFD session.  So the BFD
  data model is split in multiple YANG modules where each module
  corresponds to one type of forwarding path."
I think this would be more readable as:
"... to identify a BFD session, and so the BFD..."  (hey, I said it was a nit)
2018-07-04
16 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2018-07-04
16 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-07-04
16 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-07-03
16 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
I have found one minor editorial issue on page 43:

>    notification singlehop-notification {
>      description
>        …
[Ballot comment]
I have found one minor editorial issue on page 43:

>    notification singlehop-notification {
>      description
>        "Notification for BFD single-hop session state change. An " +
>        "implementation may rate-limit notifications, e.g. when a" +
>        "session is continuously changing state.";

Nit: add a space between "a" and the closing quotation mark.

(Note: this occurs on Pages 46, 50, 54, and 57 as well)
2018-07-03
16 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-07-03
16 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot discuss]
I will apologize in advance because this document may be sort of a casualty of this DISCUSS. I should have raised my point …
[Ballot discuss]
I will apologize in advance because this document may be sort of a casualty of this DISCUSS. I should have raised my point below at least two years ago if not four years ago when the first iana-* YANG module was registered, but the thought did not occur to me until now.

It gives me some pause to see the name "iana" embedded in the file name, module name, namespace, and prefix of the module being defined in Sec. 2.12. I realize there is precedent here, but I question whether tying these kinds of modules specifically to IANA as the protocol parameter registry operator by name puts them on the most stable deployment footing under all possible circumstances. I am personally pleased as punch with the service we get from IANA, but that doesn't mean "IANA" will always be the name of the registry operator. The more modules that get created with this embedding, the more of them that may need to change in the unlikely event that the name of the registry operator changes. Lots of RFCs would need to change too, but embedding the name extends the potential problem to the modules themselves.

It wasn't clear to me whether there is some ops-area-wide convention around the embedding of "iana" in the names of modules to be maintained by IANA. I don't see this specifically referenced in RFC 7950 or RFC 6020. So I'd like to discuss whether a different naming convention could be established and used in this document and others going forward.
2018-07-03
16 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Some further questions on Sec. 2.12:

Looking back at the other RFCs that have defined YANG modules to be maintained by IANA (7224, …
[Ballot comment]
Some further questions on Sec. 2.12:

Looking back at the other RFCs that have defined YANG modules to be maintained by IANA (7224, 7317, 8294, 8348), they use two different postal addresses for ICANN. Why? Furthermore, is "ICANN" really the right contact name, or should it be PTI?
2018-07-03
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-07-03
16 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.1 describes a scheme wherein an IGP may generate events that
cause BFD sessions to be created/destroyed; this effectively is proxying
commands …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.1 describes a scheme wherein an IGP may generate events that
cause BFD sessions to be created/destroyed; this effectively is proxying
commands from IGP over the local BFD API, which brings the authentication
and authorization of the IGP into scope, even if the local BFD
configuration access is authenticated.  (That is, the proxying component is
always authenticated, but now bears responsibility for performing
authentication/authorization/sanity checks on commands before proxying
them.)  Since IGP security is a topic for elsewhere, the changes to this
document seem scoped to documenting the requirements on the IGP/local proxy
for these checks, and arguably for only allowing authenticated IGP events
to create authenticated BFD sessions (though arguably not as well, for the
latter, since this is a YANG model document and not an architecture
document).
2018-07-03
16 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
I'm not very familiar with YANG notifications; is there a risk that they
can be abused as a DoS attack vector on the …
[Ballot comment]
I'm not very familiar with YANG notifications; is there a risk that they
can be abused as a DoS attack vector on the notification recipient by an
attacker (e.g., by causing a flapping series of state transition events or
by creating/destroying many sessions)?

Regarding the Security Considerations:

It's unclear whether local-multiplier, the various intervals, and
authentication are the only nodes that merit mention for every
per-forwarding-path-type module.  For example, source/destination addresses
could be modified to direct traffic at unwitting recipients, and the
key-chain and meticulous settings also seem security-related.

Similarly, read-only access to the discriminators (and
key-chain/authentication information) could make it easier for an attacker
to spoof traffic.
2018-07-03
16 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-07-03
16 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-07-02
16 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-06-29
16 Martin Vigoureux Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-06-26
16 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-06-21
16 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-16.txt
2018-06-21
16 (System) New version approved
2018-06-21
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-06-21
16 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-06-19
15 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-07-05
2018-06-19
15 Martin Vigoureux Ballot has been issued
2018-06-19
15 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-06-19
15 Martin Vigoureux Created "Approve" ballot
2018-06-19
15 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-06-19
15 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was changed
2018-06-18
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2018-06-18
15 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-15.txt
2018-06-18
15 (System) New version approved
2018-06-18
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-06-18
15 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-06-14
14 Christian Huitema Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christian Huitema. Sent review to list.
2018-06-14
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2018-06-08
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2018-06-08
14 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-bfd-yang-13. 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-bfd-yang-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the IETF XML Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

six, new registrations will be made in the namespace registry (ns) as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-bfd
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-bfd-ip-sh
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-ip-sh
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-bfd-mh
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-mh
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-bfd-lag
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-lag
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-bfd-mpls
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-mpls
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-bfd-mpls-te
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bfd-mpls-te
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an 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: iana-bfd-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA?
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-bfd-types
Prefix: iana-bfd-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> What should be the entry for the registry value "Maintained by IANA?" for this new YANG module?

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
2018-06-08
14 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-06-07
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christian Huitema
2018-06-07
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christian Huitema
2018-06-05
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2018-06-05
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2018-06-01
14 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-14.txt
2018-06-01
14 (System) New version approved
2018-06-01
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-06-01
14 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-05-31
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2018-05-31
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2018-05-29
13 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected
2018-05-29
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2018-05-29
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2018-05-25
13 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-05-25
13 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jeffrey Haas , jhaas@pfrc.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jeffrey Haas , jhaas@pfrc.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, bfd-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
WG (bfd) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data Model for
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)'
  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 2018-06-08. 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 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).

  The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
  Datastore Architecture (NMDA).




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-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:
    draft-ietf-teas-yang-te: A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces (None - IETF stream)
    draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang: A YANG Data Model for MPLS Base (None - IETF stream)



2018-05-25
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-05-25
13 Martin Vigoureux Last call was requested
2018-05-25
13 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2018-05-25
13 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was generated
2018-05-25
13 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2018-05-25
13 Martin Vigoureux Last call announcement was generated
2018-05-24
13 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-03-21
13 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas
: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
: Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
: …
: (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.

This RFC is intended to define a Yang module for managing the BFD protocol
and its common interactions with other modules using BFD.

The status is 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:

From the Abstract:

  This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
  and manage Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD).

  The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
  Datastore Architecture (NMDA).


: 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.
:
: Working Group Summary:

This document went through multiple reviews within the working group over
the course of its development.  Similar to other Yang modules that are
intended to interwork with other modules, multiple revisions were required
as part of changing IETF Yang module structures such as NMDA.  Additional
review passes were done to ensure that modules were able to properly use BFD
as a client mechanism.

The current document represents a proper management framework for the most
commonly deployed BFD profiles covered in the BFD RFCs.  Care was taken to
ensure that as further work is done on the BFD protocol that the modules
could be cleanly extended and maintained.

: 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?
:
: 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?

There are currently no known implementations of this Yang module.

Expert review was requested from the Yang Doctors, the Security Directorate,
and the Routing Directorate.  All feedback was incorporated into this
document prior to submission to the IESG.

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

Document Shepherd - Jeffrey Haas.
Responsible Area Director - Álvaro Retana (outgoing), Martin Vigoureux
(incoming).

: (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, who is also one of the chairs, regularly performed structural,
syntactic and operational reviews of this module.  The remaining passes on
the document by the relevant directorates did not result in any major
restructuring of the model nor its contents.

: (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.

These have been done; see above.

: (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.

None.

: (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.

No.

: (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?

This document has received good scrutiny from the Working Group participants
interested in management.

: (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
: Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None.

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

Appropriate expert reviews, including Yang doctors, have 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?

All remaining non-RFC normative references are on track for publication as RFCs.

: (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? 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).

IANA considerations were given particular attention during review.  Since
the BFD protocol is expected to have extension work done on it over the
years, namespaces have been requested to provide appropriate places for such
extension.  Additionally, the iana-bfd-types modules has been requeted to be
IANA maintained to permit easy extension of certain protcool code points
without requiring full RFC revision process for this 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.

All new IANA requested actions in this document should use Expert review.
The BFD chairs would be appropriate reviewers, with the BFD Technical
Advisors serving as backups.

: (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.

The authors made use of existing yang validators to verify the structure of
the module.

-- Jeff
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-03-21
13 Jeffrey Haas Changed document writeup
2018-03-21
13 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-13.txt
2018-03-21
13 (System) New version approved
2018-03-21
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-03-21
13 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-03-20
12 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-12.txt
2018-03-20
12 (System) New version approved
2018-03-20
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-03-20
12 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-03-04
11 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-11.txt
2018-03-04
11 (System) New version approved
2018-03-04
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-03-04
11 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-03-01
10 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-10.txt
2018-03-01
10 (System) New version approved
2018-03-01
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-03-01
10 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2018-02-15
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2018-02-10
09 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ravi Singh.
2018-02-01
09 Christian Huitema Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christian Huitema.
2018-01-25
09 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2018-01-25
09 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2018-01-25
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christian Huitema
2018-01-25
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Christian Huitema
2018-01-25
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2018-01-25
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2018-01-25
09 Acee Lindem Assignment of request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS to Acee Lindem was rejected
2018-01-25
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2018-01-25
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas Notification list changed to Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas Document shepherd changed to Jeffrey Haas
2018-01-24
09 Jeffrey Haas IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-01-23
09 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09.txt
2018-01-23
09 (System) New version approved
2018-01-23
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-01-23
09 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2018-01-12
08 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-08.txt
2018-01-12
08 (System) New version approved
2018-01-12
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2018-01-12
08 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2017-10-30
07 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-07.txt
2017-10-30
07 (System) New version approved
2017-10-30
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2017-10-30
07 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2017-10-30
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Mahesh Jethanandani , Juniper Networks
2017-10-30
07 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2017-06-30
06 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-06.txt
2017-06-30
06 (System) New version approved
2017-06-30
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Reshad Rahman , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , Juniper Networks , Mahesh Jethanandani
2017-06-30
06 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2017-03-10
05 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-05.txt
2017-03-10
05 (System) New version approved
2017-03-10
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani , Reshad Rahman , Juniper Networks , Gregory Mirsky , Lianshu Zheng , bfd-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-10
05 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2017-01-08
04 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-04.txt
2017-01-08
04 (System) New version approved
2017-01-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Lianshu Zheng" , "Juniper Networks" , "Reshad Rahman" , "Mahesh Jethanandani" , "Gregory Mirsky" , bfd-chairs@ietf.org
2017-01-08
04 Reshad Rahman Uploaded new revision
2016-07-08
03 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-03.txt
2016-07-07
02 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-02.txt
2016-02-19
01 Reshad Rahman New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-01.txt
2015-08-19
00 Jeffrey Haas Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-08-19
00 Jeffrey Haas This document now replaces draft-zheng-bfd-yang instead of None
2015-08-19
00 Santosh Pallagatti New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-yang-00.txt