Skip to main content

A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-28

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-08-10
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-07-16
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-05-07
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-04-28
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from AUTH
2021-02-11
28 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2021-02-11
28 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Steve Hanna was marked no-response
2021-02-09
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2021-02-02
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-02-01
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-02-01
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-02-01
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-01-25
28 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-01-25
28 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-01-25
28 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-01-25
28 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-01-25
28 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-01-25
28 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2021-01-25
28 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-01-25
28 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-25
28 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2020-12-29
28 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-12-29
28 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-28.txt
2020-12-29
28 (System) New version approved
2020-12-29
28 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aihua Guo , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , Victor Lopez , Young Lee
2020-12-29
28 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2020-12-03
27 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2020-12-03
27 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Wassim Haddad was marked no-response
2020-12-03
27 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2020-12-03
27 Robert Wilton [Ballot comment]
Thank you for your work on this YANG model.
2020-12-03
27 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2020-12-03
27 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2020-12-02
27 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup says "This is the proper type of RFC" but the question being asked is "Why... ?"

12 versions and two …
[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup says "This is the proper type of RFC" but the question being asked is "Why... ?"

12 versions and two years have passed, resulting in a sizeable diff, since the YANGDOCTORS review.  Should a more recent one have been done?
2020-12-02
27 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2020-12-02
27 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2020-12-02
27 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Section 4. Thank you for using the YANG Security Considerations template.  The text only notes the sensitivity of data nodes for write-operations.  …
[Ballot comment]
** Section 4. Thank you for using the YANG Security Considerations template.  The text only notes the sensitivity of data nodes for write-operations.  Customarily, there is a statement about nodes considered sensitive for reading – are there none here?

** Section 1.2. Editorial.  s/used in chapter 2/used in Section 2/
2020-12-02
27 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2020-12-02
27 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2020-12-02
27 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2020-12-01
27 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2020-12-01
27 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
These changes would have been much easier to review if we could just
issue a new version of te-types that included the WSON …
[Ballot comment]
These changes would have been much easier to review if we could just
issue a new version of te-types that included the WSON label and type
information!  But I recognize that such a thing is not done lightly and
so the current structure came to be.  That said, I assume that some kind
of automated tooling has been used in order to verify that the set of
augmented nodes is complete.  If not, that should probably be done
before publication.

Section 3

I greatly appreciate the attention to detail that went into this YANG
module.  It is sadly all too common for (e.g.) the description to not be
updated when using copy/paste to repeat a stanza for a similar sibling
node (such as a range's start/end), but these all look to have the
description match the node name.  Thank you!

    augment "/nw:networks/tet:te/tet:templates/"
          + "tet:link-template/tet:te-link-attributes/"
          + "tet:underlay/tet:primary-path/tet:path-element/tet:type/"
          + "tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
      description
        "Augment TE label hop for the underlay primary path
          of the TE link template.";

Why do we not need to limit this/these to when the te-topology is of
WSON type?  Is it because this is only a link template and not an actual
link?

Section 4

  There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
  writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
  default).  These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
  in some network environments.  Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
  to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
  effect on network operations.  These are the subtrees and data nodes
  and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

I think we need another sentence or two more here, to expand on the
nature of the "negative effect on network operations".  (My
understanding is that, basically, if these values are set improperly, no
data will pass at all, but please confirm that.)

We should probably also incorporate (by reference) the security
considerations of the underlying WSON technologies.

  /nw:networks/nw:network/.../tet:te-bandwidth/tet:technology

I couldn't find where tet:te-bandwidth is used/referenced.

Section 7.1

I'm having trouble coming up with criteria that make [ITU-Tg6982] a
normative reference of this document but not of the layer0-types
companion document.  Should it be classified the same way in both
documents?  (My preference would be to reclassify it to normative in
layer0-types, I think.)

Section 7.2

We refer to RFCs 7446 and 7581 for enough things that they seems more
properly categorized as normative.  (Not least, for terminology.)
2020-12-01
27 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2020-11-30
27 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2020-11-27
27 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2020-11-27
27 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2020-11-27
27 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done in this document.

There are a couple of wrong/unused references identified by the ID-nits tool, you may …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done in this document.

There are a couple of wrong/unused references identified by the ID-nits tool, you may want to check.

Regards

-éric
2020-11-27
27 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2020-10-30
27 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2020-10-30
27 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-12-03
2020-10-30
27 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2020-10-30
27 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2020-10-30
27 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2020-10-30
27 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2020-10-30
27 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2020-10-18
27 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2020-10-18
27 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-27.txt
2020-10-18
27 (System) New version approved
2020-10-18
27 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aihua Guo , Victor Lopez , Haomian Zheng , Young Lee , Daniel King
2020-10-18
27 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2020-09-30
26 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned
2020-09-30
26 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2020-09-30
26 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned
2020-09-30
26 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2020-09-30
26 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

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

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

a new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

The IANA Services Operator understands 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-09-30
26 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-09-21
26 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-26.txt
2020-09-21
26 (System) New version approved
2020-09-21
26 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , Young Lee , Aihua Guo , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Victor Lopez
2020-09-21
26 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2020-09-18
25 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2020-09-18
25 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2020-09-17
25 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2020-09-17
25 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2020-09-16
25 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-09-16
25 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for WSON (Wavelength Switched Optical Networks)) 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 WSON
(Wavelength Switched Optical Networks)'
  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 2020-09-30. 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 data model for the routing and
  wavelength assignment (RWA) TE topology in wavelength switched
  optical networks (WSONs).  The YANG data model defined in this
  document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
  (NMDA).




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



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang: A Yang Data Model for Optical Impairment-aware Topology (None - IETF stream)
    draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang: YANG data model for Flexi-Grid Optical Networks (None - IETF stream)



2020-09-16
25 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-09-16
25 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2020-09-16
25 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2020-09-16
25 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2020-09-16
25 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2020-09-16
25 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was changed
2020-07-28
25 Deborah Brungard RTG Dir reviewer: Lou Berger
2020-07-28
25 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2020-07-12
25 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Lou Berger.
2020-06-23
25 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger
2020-06-23
25 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger
2020-06-22
25 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli
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 …
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?
Proposed Standard. This is the proper type of RFC and it is correctly indicated in the title 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 a YANG data model for the routing and
  wavelength assignment (RWA) TE topology in wavelength switched
  optical networks (WSONs).  The YANG data model defined in this
  document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
  (NMDA).

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?
Nothing particular that is worth noting. Consensus is wide and solid.

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?

The document is supported by most of the active members of the working group and implementations already exist.
The draft has been reviewed by the YANG doctors as part of the preparation for last call and the it has been indicated as "on the right track".

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard.

(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.
It 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.
None 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 concern.

(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?
Yes. All the authors did it.

(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 references this document.

(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?
Solid WG 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.)
An appeal has never been considered by anyone in the WG.

(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.
No error has been found, just 3 warnings on RFC2119 boiler plate and unused reference that will be fixed while fixing the post WG last call review comments.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor review completed and comments addressed. YANG validations reports 0 errors and 0 warnings.

(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?
None.

(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.
No.

(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, the publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).
URI and YANG module in the YANG module names registry are correctly requested in the IANA considerations section.

(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.
None.

(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.
Pyang and Yanglint do not report any error.

(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?
Yes, all validations successfully completed.

2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli
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 …
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?
Proposed Standard. This is the proper type of RFC and it is correctly indicated in the title 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 a YANG data model for the routing and
  wavelength assignment (RWA) TE topology in wavelength switched
  optical networks (WSONs).  The YANG data model defined in this
  document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
  (NMDA).

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?
Nothing particular that is worth noting. Consensus is wide and solid.

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?

The document is supported by most of the active members of the working group and implementations already exist.
The draft has been reviewed by the YANG doctors as part of the preparation for last call and the it has been indicated as "on the right track".

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Daniele Ceccarelli
Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard.

(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.
It 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.
None 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 concern.

(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?
Yes. All the authors did it.

(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 references this document.

(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?
Solid WG 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.)
An appeal has never been considered by anyone in the WG.

(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.
No error has been found, just 3 warnings on RFC2119 boiler plate and unused reference that will be fixed while fixing the post WG last call review comments.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
YANG doctor review completed and comments addressed. YANG validations reports 0 errors and 0 warnings.

(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?
None.

(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.
No.

(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, the publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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).
URI and YANG module in the YANG module names registry are correctly requested in the IANA considerations section.

(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.
None.

(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.
Pyang and Yanglint do not report any error.

(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?
Yes, all validations successfully completed.

2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli Notification list changed to Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
2020-06-15
25 Daniele Ceccarelli Document shepherd changed to Daniele Ceccarelli
2020-05-18
25 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-25.txt
2020-05-18
25 (System) New version approved
2020-05-18
25 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King , Young Lee , Aihua Guo , Haomian Zheng , Victor Lopezalvarez
2020-05-18
25 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2020-05-13
24 Daniele Ceccarelli Added to session: interim-2020-ccamp-01
2020-05-08
24 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-24.txt
2020-05-08
24 (System) New version approved
2020-05-08
24 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , Aihua Guo
2020-05-08
24 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2020-05-07
23 (System) Document has expired
2020-03-10
23 Daniele Ceccarelli
2020-03-10
23 Daniele Ceccarelli IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-11-04
23 Haomian Zheng New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-23.txt
2019-11-04
23 (System) New version approved
2019-11-03
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Aihua Guo , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2019-11-03
23 Haomian Zheng Uploaded new revision
2019-07-05
22 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-22.txt
2019-07-05
22 (System) New version approved
2019-07-05
22 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2019-07-05
22 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-05-08
21 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-21.txt
2019-05-08
21 (System) New version approved
2019-05-08
21 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Victor Lopezalvarez , Young Lee , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo
2019-05-08
21 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-03-24
20 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-20.txt
2019-03-24
20 (System) New version approved
2019-03-24
20 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Victor Lopezalvarez , Young Lee , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo
2019-03-24
20 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-27
19 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-19.txt
2019-02-27
19 (System) New version approved
2019-02-27
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Victor Lopezalvarez , Young Lee , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo
2019-02-27
19 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-12-05
18 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-18.txt
2018-12-05
18 (System) New version approved
2018-12-05
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Victor Lopezalvarez , Young Lee , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo
2018-12-05
18 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-11-27
17 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-17.txt
2018-11-27
17 (System) New version approved
2018-11-27
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-11-27
17 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-11-19
16 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-16.txt
2018-11-19
16 (System) New version approved
2018-11-19
16 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-11-19
16 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-11-13
15 Acee Lindem Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Sent review to list.
2018-11-07
15 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2018-11-07
15 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2018-11-06
15 Daniele Ceccarelli Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2018-10-22
15 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-15.txt
2018-10-22
15 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
15 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-10-22
15 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-10-18
14 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-14.txt
2018-10-18
14 (System) New version approved
2018-10-18
14 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-10-18
14 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-08-22
13 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-13.txt
2018-08-22
13 (System) New version approved
2018-08-22
13 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-08-22
13 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-08-22
12 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-12.txt
2018-08-22
12 (System) New version approved
2018-08-22
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-08-22
12 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-08-21
11 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-11.txt
2018-08-21
11 (System) New version approved
2018-08-21
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-08-21
11 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-02-27
10 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-10.txt
2018-02-27
10 (System) New version approved
2018-02-27
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2018-02-27
10 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-11-11
09 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-09.txt
2017-11-11
09 (System) New version approved
2017-11-11
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2017-11-11
09 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-10-10
08 Ricard Vilalta New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-08.txt
2017-10-10
08 (System) New version approved
2017-10-10
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ricard Vilata , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2017-10-10
08 Ricard Vilalta Uploaded new revision
2017-07-10
07 Daniele Ceccarelli Added to session: IETF-99: ccamp  Thu-1550
2017-07-03
07 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-07.txt
2017-07-03
07 (System) New version approved
2017-07-03
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xian Zhang , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xian Zhang , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Ricard Vilata , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2017-07-03
07 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-06-20
06 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-06.txt
2017-06-20
06 (System) New version approved
2017-06-20
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2017-06-20
06 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-03-24
05 Daniele Ceccarelli Added to session: IETF-98: ccamp  Tue-1450
2017-02-21
05 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-05.txt
2017-02-21
05 (System) New version approved
2017-02-21
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Bin-Yeong Yoon , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Aihua Guo , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez
2017-02-21
05 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-01-20
04 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-04.txt
2017-01-20
04 (System) New version approved
2017-01-20
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Aihua Guo" , "Young Lee" , "Xian Zhang" , "Daniel King" , "Bin-Yeong Yoon" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Aihua Guo" , "Young Lee" , "Xian Zhang" , "Daniel King" , "Bin-Yeong Yoon" , "Victor Lopezalvarez" , "Dhruv Dhody"
2017-01-20
04 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2016-07-20
03 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-03.txt
2016-07-08
02 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-02.txt
2016-04-05
01 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-01.txt
2016-04-04
00 Daniele Ceccarelli Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-04-04
00 Daniele Ceccarelli Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-04-04
00 Daniele Ceccarelli This document now replaces draft-lee-ccamp-wson-yang instead of None
2016-04-04
00 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-00.txt