A YANG Data Model for Microwave Topology
draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-12

Thanks for your patience, the only remaining open comments are either editorial (by John Scudder and Murray Kucherawy) or the security ones by Roman Danyliw were not deemed critical enough by Roman to raise a DISCUSS. I.e., I am approving this document.

I still *strongly* suggest the authors to address those quickly before the RFC editor starts working on this draft.

As the responsible AD for this I-D, I still want to check whether everything is OK (and AFAIK it is the case). Please note that I was on vacations for 10 days before the IETF week, and will also be vacationing/traveling back home the week after.

I.e., I will give the final push in the first week of April.

Thanks for your patience.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have some minor comments below, that I hope may be helpful. Also, thanks to Éric for being special guest AD, and to Daniele for the shepherd write-up.

### Section 1.1, unused terms

MSDC is defined but only used once... prior to this section, and with in-line expansion already. So, I think the abbreviation can be removed.

Same for PNC.

### Section 1.2, incorrect xref

“A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in chapter 3.1 of this document.”

RFCs don’t have “chapters”, they have “sections”, but more importantly this document doesn’t have a section (or chapter) 3.1. I guess you need to update your cross reference. Probably you mean Section 2.1?

### Appendices

Thank you for the clear diagrams, they’re very helpful. Just curious, what tool did you use to produce them? (Assuming the different renderings weren't hand-crafted that is.)

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

Thanks for standardising another YANG model.  I'm balloting discuss because I think that there is a small bug in the YANG module that needs to be fixed, but otherwise I intend to move to Yes.

(1) p 10, sec 2.5.  Microwave Topology YANG Module

      augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/tet:te"
          + "/tet:te-node-attributes" {
      when "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types"
          + "/tet:te-topology/mwt:mw-topology" {

I think that you probably need to change the when statement to a relative path, otherwise it will be checking for any network having a microwave topology rather that this network instance having a microwave topology.

[Ballot comment]
I also have a few non-blocking suggestions that may improve this document:

Minor level comments:

(2) p 16, sec Appendix A.  Microwave Topology Model with base topology models

    |  +--rw node* [node-id]
    |  |  +--rw node-id                  node-id
    |  |  +--rw supporting-node* [network-ref node-ref]
    |  |  |  +--rw network-ref  -> ../../../supporting-network/
  network-ref

I'm not sure whether a line length option has been specified to pyang when generating the tree output, but that may help make it wrap better and become more readable.  It might be worth adding a note to the RFC editor to see if you can manually improve this tree diagram before RFC publication.  E.g., perhaps the referenced path of some of the long leaf-refs should be elided altogether.


(3) p 18, sec Appendix A.  Microwave Topology Model with base topology models

A.1.  Instance data for 2+0 mode for a bonded configuration

Probably having a bit more of a description of what is being configured here, e.g., referencing back to the diagram (if appropriate), may be helpful to readers.


(4) p 24, sec Appendix A.  Microwave Topology Model with base topology models

A.2.  Instance data for 1+1 mode for a protected configuration

Similarly, having a bit more of a description of what is being configured here, e.g., referencing back to the diagram (if appropriate), may be helpful to readers.


(5) p 30, sec Appendix B.  Microwave Topology Model with example extensions

  This appendix provides examples of how the Microwave Topology Model
  can be used with the interface reference topology (ifref)

Do you want to explicitly state this as "This non-normative appendix", since I presume that you only have, and only want to have, informative references to those two RFCs?  You may also want to cite specific versions of those drafts rather than the latest one.  You could also add a note to the RFC editor to check/update this to the latest version of those drafts at the time of publication.


(6) p 43, sec Appendix B.  Microwave Topology Model with example extensions

  This document was prepared using kramdown (thanks Martin Thomson).

Note the kramdown RFC tool is written/maintained by Carsten Bormann, Martin did the github integrations.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joseph Salowey for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.  The Security Considerations for writing to these nodes is discussed.  Would there any any circumstances where read access to these nodes would be problematic?

[Ballot comment]
I am acting as the responsible AD, replacing John Scudder for this I-D.
AD review was done and authors have replied and acted upon my review.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-10. 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-microwave-topology
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-microwave-topology
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-microwave-topology
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-microwave-topology
Prefix: mwt
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 2024-02-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, daniele.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Microwave Topology) 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
Microwave Topology'
  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 2024-02-05. 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 to describe microwave/
  millimeter radio links in a network topology.




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



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?
>Microwave is a relatively small area in the CCAMP working group but all the interested parties have collaborated to the draft either as authors or contributors and showed support.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
>No controversy

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 threat

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)?
>No implementation reported in the draft, but is has been used in interop events: https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/news/1538-2019-01-etsi-first-millimetre-wave-transmission-test-event-achieves-100-interoperability-2

## 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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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]?
>No errors nor warnings. Yes it does comply it NMDA.

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.

> Report from IDNITS report only minor warnings that can be fixed during RFC editorship.
  Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


## 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. All the major microwave vendors are involved in the work and the model has been already tested in interop events.

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?
>Given it's defining YANG models and OPS review might be beneficial. Maybe security, but we're just speaking about augmentations to already published topology models.

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?
> Proposed Standard. Yes, all state attributes updated. This is the proper type of RFC publication due to interoperation between different implementations.

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.
> All the authors and contributed have sent their replies to the mailing list. They have been tracked and reported in the comments of the document history.

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.
> Usually we have the opposite problem, everyone wants to be added as author. We just managed to reduce the list of front page authors from 6 to 5. You can find the change in version 8 of the draft.

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.)
> 4 minor warnings identified. Nothing that can't be fixed in the next reviews.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
> All normative references are IETF RFCs. Two ETSI documents have been identified as informational. They are publicly available.

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.
> No

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?
> No

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]).
> IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and record YANG module names in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. This is correctly stated in the draft.

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 requirement for designated experts.

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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 Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?
>Microwave is a relatively small area in the CCAMP working group but all the interested parties have collaborated to the draft either as authors or contributors and showed support.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
>No controversy

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 threat

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)?
>No implementation reported in the draft, but is has been used in interop events: https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/news/1538-2019-01-etsi-first-millimetre-wave-transmission-test-event-achieves-100-interoperability-2

## 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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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]?
>No errors nor warnings. Yes it does comply it NMDA.

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.

> Report from IDNITS report only minor warnings that can be fixed during RFC editorship.
  Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


## 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. All the major microwave vendors are involved in the work and the model has been already tested in interop events.

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?
>Given it's defining YANG models and OPS review might be beneficial. Maybe security, but we're just speaking about augmentations to already published topology models.

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?
> Proposed Standard. Yes, all state attributes updated.

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.
> All the authors and contributed have sent their replies to the mailing list. They have been tracked and reported in the comments of the document history.

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.
> Usually we have the opposite problem, everyone wants to be added as author. We just managed to reduce the list of front page authors from 6 to 5. You can find the change in version 8 of the draft.

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.)
> 4 minor warnings identified. Nothing that can't be fixed in the next reviews.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
> All normative references are IETF RFCs. Two ETSI documents have been identified as informational. They are publicly available.

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.
> No

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?
> No

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]).
> IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and record YANG module names in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. This is correctly stated in the draft.

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 requirement for designated experts.

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Daniela Spreafico , Italo Busi , Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Scott Mansfield , Xi Li , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?
>Microwave is a relatively small area in the CCAMP working group but all the interested parties have collaborated to the draft either as authors or contributors and showed support.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
>No controversy

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 threat

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)?
>No implementation reported in the draft, but is has been used in interop events: https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/news/1538-2019-01-etsi-first-millimetre-wave-transmission-test-event-achieves-100-interoperability-2

## 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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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]?
>No errors nor warnings. Yes it does comply it NMDA.

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.

> Report from IDNITS report only minor warnings that can be fixed during RFC editorship.
  Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


## 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. All the major microwave vendors are involved in the work and the model has been already tested in interop events.

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?
>Given it's defining YANG models and OPS review might be beneficial. Maybe security, but we're just speaking about augmentations to already published topology models.

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?
> Proposed Standard. Yes, all state attributes updated.

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.
> All the authors and contributed have sent their replies to the mailing list. They have been tracked and reported in the comments of the document history.

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.
> Actual number is 6. I don't see a particular reason for it. It is possible to ask to move one to the contributors list if needed.

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.)
> 4 minor warnings identified. Nothing that can't be fixed in the next reviews.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
> All normative references are IETF RFCs. Two ETSI documents have been identified as informational. They are publicly available.

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.
> No

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?
> No

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]).
> IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and record YANG module names in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. This is correctly stated in the draft.

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 requirement for designated experts.

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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 Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?
>Microwave is a relatively small area in the CCAMP working group but all the interested parties have collaborated to the draft either as authors or contributors and showed support.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
>No controversy

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 threat

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)?
>No implementation reported in the draft, but is has been used in interop events: https://www.etsi.org/newsroom/news/1538-2019-01-etsi-first-millimetre-wave-transmission-test-event-achieves-100-interoperability-2

## 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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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.
>YANG doctor and RTG DIR reviews successfully completed. Draft ready for both.

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]?
>No errors nor warnings. Yes it does comply it NMDA.

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.

> Report from IDNITS report only minor warnings that can be fixed during RFC editorship.
  Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


## 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. All the major microwave vendors are involved in the work and the model has been already tested in interop events.

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?
>Given it's defining YANG models and OPS review might be beneficial. Maybe security, but we're just speaking about augmentations to already published topology models.

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?
> Proposed Standard. Yes, all state attributes updated.

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.
> All the authors and contributed have sent their replies to the mailing list. They have been tracked and reported in the comments of the document history.

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.
> Actual number is 6. I don't see a particular reason for it. It is possible to ask to move one to the contributors list if needed.

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.)
> 4 minor warnings identified. Nothing that can't be fixed in the next reviews.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
> No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
> All normative references are IETF RFCs. Two ETSI documents have been identified as informational. They are publicly available.

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.
> No

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?
> No

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]).
> IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and record YANG module names in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. This is correctly stated in the draft.

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 requirement for designated experts.

[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Daniela Spreafico , Italo Busi , Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Scott Mansfield , Xi Li , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniela Spreafico , Italo Busi , Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Scott Mansfield , Xi Li , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniela Spreafico , Italo Busi , Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Scott Mansfield , Xi Li , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniela Spreafico , Italo Busi , Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Scott Mansfield , Xi Li , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org