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 | IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/jSPtsQMXSX6_vhZLa0eF9YOBqNQ AUTHORS Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8SvyBfk04wdWOxFyNCRX5JZ6c6s/ Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/atSllzanOrUyWZPUEbr-FVu86VY Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/PptuIskzDYKYqsbWPCsoYIcsZAc/ Aihua Guo aihuaguo@futurewei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/5Aj0TiL06cfUJOhEUbWg4hlf7gs/ Victor Lopez victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/23b5oRaEj66BIGSg1g76QpzXdPk/ … IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/jSPtsQMXSX6_vhZLa0eF9YOBqNQ AUTHORS Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8SvyBfk04wdWOxFyNCRX5JZ6c6s/ Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/atSllzanOrUyWZPUEbr-FVu86VY Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/PptuIskzDYKYqsbWPCsoYIcsZAc/ Aihua Guo aihuaguo@futurewei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/5Aj0TiL06cfUJOhEUbWg4hlf7gs/ Victor Lopez victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/23b5oRaEj66BIGSg1g76QpzXdPk/ Daniel King d.king@lancaster.ac.uk https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/v0rE0YGZ1ipm8wteur5xqtSo-Aw/ Dhruv Dhody dhruv.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Nzs-6APQg8zDOq-lTTCxegUun2g/ Bin Yeong Yoon byyun@etri.re.kr https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/hivT3TEJsIcWiwFHW07-dooNcoc Ricard Vilalta vricard.vilalta@cttc.es https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/_KwkPY1DaZ9lLv7Oe4wANiHoasE/ |
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 |