A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, daniel@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology'
  (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jim Guichard, Andrew Alston and John Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a YANG data model to describe the topologies
   of an Optical Transport Network (OTN).  It is independent of control
   plane protocols and captures topological and resource-related
   information pertaining to OTN.  This model enables clients, which
   interact with a transport domain controller, for OTN topology-related
   operations such as obtaining the relevant topology resource
   information.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the 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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Daniel King. The Responsible
   Area Director is John Scudder.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note