: (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?
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.
: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd - Jeffrey Haas.
Responsible Area Director - Álvaro Retana (outgoing), 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.
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?
: (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.
: (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?
: (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
: summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the 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?
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.)
: (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.
: (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?
: (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.
: (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.
: (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