A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)
draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-26

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for publishing this document and YANG module.  It looks good to me, with just one minor comment:


(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction

  The primary focus of this document is to describe L1CSM YANG model
  required for the instantiation of point-to-point L1 connectivity
  services, to provide Layer 1 connectivity between two or more
  customer sites where the customer has some control over the
  establishment and type of the connectivity.  The L1CSM specified in
  this document supports the point-to-point connectivity services
  defined in [RFC4847].

I'm struggling to parse the first sentence in paragraph above.  Perhaps the following is clearer?

  The primary focus of this document is to describe the L1CSM YANG
  model that is used for the instantiation of point-to-point L1
  connectivity services, which provide Layer 1 connectivity between
  two or more customer sites where the customer has some control
  over the establishment and type of the connectivity.

It also wasn't really clear to me how the YANG model relates to the 3 different abstract services models that you described.  Is it possible for the relationship to be a bit more clearly explained please.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD, and to Luis for the clear and comprehensive shepherd writeup.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25

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), and some nits.

Special thanks to Luis Contreras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2024-02-16/ (hoping to read soon replies to his review)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Ambiguous use of model

In several places in the I-D, 'model' is used when "data model" is more accurate and less ambiguous.

## Section 1

In `(i.e., reachability or TE information in remote customer sites)` should it rather be 'e.g.' (== for example) ?

## Section 1.1

Suggest to move the figure 1 *after* the text explaining it (as the text expands some acronyms). No need to reply on this comment.

## Section 2

Should leaf names "uni-id" and "service-id" simply be "id" ?

## Section 4

Rather than `L1CSM YANG Code`, why not "L1CSM YANG data model" ?

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## L1 or layer 1 ?

The I-D should be consistent and use either "L1" or "layer 1" rather than alternating both terms.

## YANG in uppercase

Please ensure to use all uppercase "YANG" throughout this I-D.

## Abstract

s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/This document provides a YANG *data model* Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model/

s/This model can be utilized/This *data* model can be *utilised*/

s/Layer 1 network/layer-1 network/

## Section 1

s/This document provides a YANG Layer 1/This document provides a YANG *data model* *l*ayer 1/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-l1csm
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l1csm
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-l1csm
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l1csm
Prefix: l1csm
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.

We understand 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 Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for L1
Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)'
  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 2024-02-01. 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


  This document provides a YANG Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model
  (L1CSM).

  This model can be utilized by a customer network controller to
  initiate a connectivity service request as well as to retrieve
  service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with
  its customer network controller.  This YANG model is in compliance of
  Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang

## 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?

The document has 5 co-authors and 3 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus.

Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (three of them being authors/contributors), with just one comment (WG last call can be found in the archive at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUVBpUPnwZspJhDtn-WMaKiglk4/).

There was no objection to publication.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported.

## 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.

The YANG data model defined in the document describes Layer 1 connectivity services with UNI access type and is consistent with the Service Attributes defined in [MEF63], with the exception of the Service Level Specification Service Attributes which are ouside the scope of this document. Proper references are included in the document. No external review is needed.

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.

YANGDOCTORS last call review ready with nits.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?

YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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.

None applicable.

## 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. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.

The YANG model defined can be utilized by a customer network controller to either initiate a connectivity service request or to retrieve service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network controller. From that perspective the model is useful and assist on the automation of operations at Layer 1.

The document is ready to hand off to the AD.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is the product of the CCAMP WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.

The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

The WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the CCAMP mailing list at the time of WG
last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the CCAMP mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MAra7x0UuvAturtBCjWG3HsL5S8/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/N2WZU57DjH70am454or2rSed8-c/

No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed.

The CCAMP mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received.


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.

No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.

Number of authors and editors on the front page is five.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

id-nits reveals some lines (8) with weird spacing.

Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The distribution seems to be right.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

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?

One of the normative references, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types], is ready to be submitted to the IESG. The CCAMP chairs are waiting for an update to the OTN topology to move them together as a cluster, but if it will take too long, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types] will be progressed independently.

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][11]).

The document makes requests to IANA (an URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.

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.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang

## 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?

The document has 5 co-authors and 3 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus.

Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (three of them being authors/contributors), with just one comment (WG last call can be found in the archive at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUVBpUPnwZspJhDtn-WMaKiglk4/).

There was no objection to publication.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.

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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported.

## 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.

The YANG data model defined in the document describes Layer 1 connectivity services with UNI access type and is consistent with the Service Attributes defined in [MEF63], with the exception of the Service Level Specification Service Attributes which are ouside the scope of this document. Proper references are included in the document. No external review is needed.

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.

YANGDOCTORS last call review ready with nits.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]?

YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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.

None applicable.

## 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. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.

The YANG model defined can be utilized by a customer network controller to either initiate a connectivity service request or to retrieve service states for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network controller. From that perspective the model is useful and assist on the automation of operations at Layer 1.

The document is ready to hand off to the AD.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is the product of the CCAMP WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.

The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.

The WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the CCAMP mailing list at the time of WG
last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the CCAMP mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MAra7x0UuvAturtBCjWG3HsL5S8/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/N2WZU57DjH70am454or2rSed8-c/

No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed.

The CCAMP mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received.


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.

No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.

Number of authors and editors on the front page is five.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

id-nits reveals some lines (8) with weird spacing.

Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

The distribution seems to be right.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None.

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?

One of the normative references, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types], is ready to be submitted to the IESG. The CCAMP chairs are waiting for an update to the OTN topology to move them together as a cluster, but if it will take too long, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types] will be progressed independently.

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][11]).

The document makes requests to IANA (an URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.

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.

No new registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Oscar de Dios , Young Lee

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Oscar de Dios , Haomian Zheng , Dhruv Dhody , Young Lee