Transport Northbound Interface Applicability Statement
draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-17

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
>Informational. This is the proper type of RFC as no new protocol extensions are defined but it defines the applicability of CCAMP and TEAS models to the NBI of a trnsport SDN controller. The type is correctly indicated in the page header.

(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:

This document provides an analysis of the applicability of the YANG
  models defined by the IETF (Traffic Engineering Architecture and
  Signaling (TEAS) moreover, Common Control and Measurement Plane
  (CCAMP) WGs in particular) to support ODU transit services,
  Transparent client services and EPL/EVPL Ethernet services over OTN
  single and multi-domain network scenarios.

  This document also describes how existing YANG models can be used
  through a number of worked examples and JSON fragments.

Working Group Summary:

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?
> The draft has been produced by a design team selected by the co-chairs and it's progress has been smooth with a wide support from the working group.

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, YANG 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?
>Non of the above, this is an informational draft. There are several commercial implementations that make use of the models described in the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Area Director: John Scudder

(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 document is ready for publication. The last call comments and reviews show that the WG believes the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>None

(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.
> No further specific review is needed.

(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.
> No concerns,

(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?
> All IPR declarations collected during WG adoption and WG last call. No IPR disclosed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
> No IPR disclosed.

(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?
> Strong and wide consensus.

(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 one.

(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.
> A minor warning (There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.) that can be fixed in the next rounds of review.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> The document reports JSON code only as example. No models o MIBs are defined.

(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?
> Some. Given the fact that this is an applicability document i would suggest to move them to informative.

(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.
> According to RFC3967 all the references can be moved to informative.

(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 8126).
> No IANA asction is required.

(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.
> No IANA asction is required.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
> No YANG module is defined by the draft.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(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?
>Informational. This is the proper type of RFC as no new protocol extensions are defined but it defines the applicability of CCAMP and TEAS models to the NBI of a trnsport SDN controller. The type is correctly indicated in the page header.

(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:

This document provides an analysis of the applicability of the YANG
  models defined by the IETF (Traffic Engineering Architecture and
  Signaling (TEAS) moreover, Common Control and Measurement Plane
  (CCAMP) WGs in particular) to support ODU transit services,
  Transparent client services and EPL/EVPL Ethernet services over OTN
  single and multi-domain network scenarios.

  This document also describes how existing YANG models can be used
  through a number of worked examples and JSON fragments.

Working Group Summary:

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?
> The draft has been produced by a design team selected by the co-chairs and it's progress has been smooth with a wide support from the working group.

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, YANG 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?
>Non of the above, this is an informational draft. There are several commercial implementations that make use of the models described in the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Area Director: John Scudder

(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 document is ready for publication. The last call comments and reviews show that the WG believes the document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>None

(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.
> No further specific review is needed.

(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.
> No concerns,

(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?
> All IPR declarations collected during WG adoption and WG last call. No IPR disclosed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
> No IPR disclosed.

(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?
> Strong and wide consensus.

(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 one.

(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.
> A minor warning (There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.) that can be fixed in the next rounds of review.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> The document reports JSON code only as example. No models o MIBs are defined.

(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?
> Some. Given the fact that this is an applicability document i would suggest to move them to informative.

(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.
> According to RFC3967 all the references can be moved to informative.

(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 8126).
> No IANA asction is required.

(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.
> No IANA asction is required.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?
> No YANG module is defined by the draft.

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-1cCiCN2OD3X8BjRrSMOkCC3yQU/

AUTHORS

Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/EqNgxjmjqvu_CMroGHmWAmA0_bo/
Daniel King daniel@olddog.co.uk https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/nIMJhx3h92W4QFa9StXlvvMTSqk/
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/pzhGaHSXL9g0APUrXSp2ykAVb8Y/
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@ritt.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/KQbHaOvqrqXqiHz0oGioKm0ZNIE/
Yang Zhao zhaoyangyjy@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/PLxztchCcJyyyNrav63mqBdICbY/
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/yfEzYqoiS3k8Nqc7Y_aAfsr2rPs/
Gianmarco Bruno gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/uXxg9keX5AzsSghq7i0uWSWikL8/
Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ouUtdX3K9fjTDtxKmMs99h4QuR0/
Victor Lopez victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/mwCzPBbopeEwx-GByAGoJHLWPOk/
Carlo Perocchio carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AVrjLOdsJvNSapl8_gN_jlrXpJk/
Ricard Vilalta ricard.vilalta@cttc.es https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zsGj-C7bk7KQx8sD4BkxWNtZ6ZM/
Michael Scharf michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/5ccwcEqdIJ_xZdc_b3uPRaCAFEg/
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/TZhbXTLP48cOU4eka8Ezf0wUBFg/

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-1cCiCN2OD3X8BjRrSMOkCC3yQU/

AUTHORS

Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com
Daniel King daniel@olddog.co.uk
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@ritt.cn
Yang Zhao zhaoyangyjy@chinamobile.com
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Gianmarco Bruno gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com
Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com
Victor Lopez victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
Carlo Perocchio carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com
Ricard Vilalta ricard.vilalta@cttc.es
Michael Scharf michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com