Skip to main content

Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-09

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, shares@ndzh.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores'
  (draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Interface to the Routing System
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

  This document provides requirements for a service that allows client
   applications to subscribe to updates of a YANG datastore.  Based on
   criteria negotiated as part of a subscription, updates will be pushed
   to targeted recipients.  Such a capability eliminates the need for
   periodic polling of YANG datastores by applications and fills a
   functional gap in existing YANG transports (i.e.  Netconf and
   Restconf).  Such a service can be summarized as a "pub/sub" service
   for YANG datastore updates.  Beyond a set of basic requirements for
   the service, various refinements are addressed.  These refinements
   include: periodicity of object updates, filtering out of objects
   underneath a requested a subtree, and delivery QoS guarantees.

Working Group Summary

Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done on individual draft 5/26/2015 to 6/9/2015 
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

Document shepherd:  Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD: Alia Atlas 

RFC Editor Note