Skip to main content

YANG Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-06
17 (System) Document has expired
2023-07-14
17 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to Waiting for Implementation from In WG Last Call
2023-07-06
17 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-07-05
17 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17.txt
2023-07-05
17 Mahesh Jethanandani New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2023-07-05
17 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2023-06-16
16 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

author: Mahesh Jethanandani
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qxnJxcXerxMmDSIZy7jOfouZPA4/

author: Keyur Patel
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mosRStZU57k5fA0qsdv12Co0FBM/

author: Susan Hares
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/

author: Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/

Contributor: Rob Shakir
[missing]

contributor: Anees Shaikh
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/

contributor: Alex Clemm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/

Contributor: Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/

Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin
[missing]

Contributor: Kevin D'Souza
(missing)
Contributor: Deepak Bansal
(missing)


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-06-09
16 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

author: Mahesh Jethanandani

author: Keyur Patel
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mosRStZU57k5fA0qsdv12Co0FBM/

author: Susan Hares
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/

author: Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/

Contributor: Rob Shakir
[missing]

contributor: Anees Shaikh
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/

contributor: Alex Clemm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/

Contributor: Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/

Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin
[missing]

Contributor: Kevin D'Souza
(missing)
Contributor: Deepak Bansal
(missing)


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-23
16 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

author: Mahesh Jethanandani

author: Keyur Patel
(missing)

author: Susan Hares
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/

author: Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/

Contributor: Rob Shakir
[missing]

contributor: Anees Shaikh
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/

contributor: Alex Clemm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/

Contributor: Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/

Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin
[missing]

Contributor: Kevin D'Souza
(missing)
Contributor: Deepak Bansal
(missing)


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-23
16 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

author: Mahesh Jethanandani

author: Keyur Patel

author: Susan Hares
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/

author: Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-XG4AiZK1dUfhT0FmaeW-PPaHlM/

Contributor: Rob Shakir
[missing]

contributor: Anees Shaikh
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/

contributor: Alex Clemm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/

Contributor: Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/

Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin
[missing]

Contributor: Kevin D'Souza
Contributor: Deepak Bansal


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-22
16 Susan Hares
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents - version 4 July 2022.
[Note: This report has the IPR references listed]


Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

author: Mahesh Jethanandani

author: Keyur Patel

author: Susan Hares
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/urZ806ATrqDB6Jezq_amX7xZAOU/

author: Jeff Haas


Contributor: Rob Shakir
[missing]

contributor: Anees Shaikh
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4gHARjJXxHWpopfUbfiiu5cwQIg/

contributor: Alex Clemm
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OvV_54AMd7iny7Fbsv62YtxSF9k/

Contributor: Xufeng Liu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c7nkR_wXrVGrGDSikVaNlhPwads/

Contributor: Aleksandr Zhdankin
[missing]

Contributor: Kevin D'Souza
Contributor: Deepak Bansal


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-05-17
16 Susan Hares These drafts were considered by IDR, but a decision was made to go via Yang 1.0 methods.
The initial draft was taken from BGP configurations.
2023-05-17
16 Susan Hares This document now replaces draft-zhdankin-netmod-bgp-cfg, draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model instead of draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model
2023-03-29
16 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Andrew Alston
2023-03-28
16 Jie Dong Added to session: IETF-116: idr  Thu-0030
2023-03-01
16 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-16.txt
2023-03-01
16 Mahesh Jethanandani New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2023-03-01
16 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2022-10-13
15 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-15.txt
2022-10-13
15 Mahesh Jethanandani New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2022-10-13
15 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2022-07-03
14 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-14.txt
2022-07-03
14 Mahesh Jethanandani New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2022-07-03
14 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2022-03-06
13 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-13.txt
2022-03-06
13 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2022-03-06
13 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2021-10-25
12 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-12.txt
2021-10-25
12 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2021-10-25
12 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2021-07-11
11 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-11.txt
2021-07-11
11 (System) New version approved
2021-07-11
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jeffrey Haas , Keyur Patel , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares
2021-07-11
11 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2021-05-19
10 (System) Document has expired
2020-11-15
10 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10.txt
2020-11-15
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mahesh Jethanandani)
2020-11-15
10 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2020-11-12
09 Susan Hares Notification list changed to jie.dong@huawei.com because the document shepherd was set
2020-11-12
09 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Jie Dong
2020-08-15
09 Acee Lindem Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Review has been revised by Acee Lindem.
2020-08-15
09 Acee Lindem Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Acee Lindem. Sent review to list.
2020-07-29
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2020-07-29
09 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Acee Lindem
2020-07-29
09 Susan Hares Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2020-06-28
09 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt
2020-06-28
09 (System) New version approved
2020-06-28
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mahesh Jethanandani , Jeffrey Haas , Keyur Patel , Susan Hares
2020-06-28
09 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2020-02-26
08 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-08.txt
2020-02-26
08 (System) New version approved
2020-02-26
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Keyur Patel , Mahesh Jethanandani , Jeffrey Haas , Susan Hares
2020-02-26
08 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2020-02-03
07 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2020-01-19
07 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Joel Jaeggli was marked no-response
2019-12-30
07 Andy Bierman Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Andy Bierman. Sent review to list.
2019-12-10
07 Yingzhen Qu Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list.
2019-11-26
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2019-11-26
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu
2019-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2019-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli
2019-11-18
07 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected
2019-11-18
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2019-11-18
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2019-11-18
07 Min Ye Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Mike McBride was rejected
2019-11-18
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2019-11-18
07 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2019-11-18
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Andy Bierman
2019-11-18
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Andy Bierman
2019-11-18
07 Kent Watsen Assignment of request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS to Kent Watsen was rejected
2019-11-18
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Kent Watsen
2019-11-18
07 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Kent Watsen
2019-11-17
07 Susan Hares Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2019-11-17
07 Susan Hares Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2019-11-17
07 Susan Hares Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2019-10-04
07 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-07.txt
2019-10-04
07 (System) New version approved
2019-10-04
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: idr-chairs@ietf.org, Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-10-04
07 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-06-13
06 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
2019-06-13
06 (System) New version approved
2019-06-13
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-06-13
06 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-03-25
05 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05.txt
2019-03-25
05 (System) New version approved
2019-03-25
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-03-25
05 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-02-26
04 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
2019-02-26
04 (System) New version approved
2019-02-26
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-02-26
04 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-02-26
03 (System) Document has expired
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
2019-02-25
04 (System) New version approved
2019-02-25
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
2019-02-25
04 (System) New version approved
2019-02-25
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
2019-02-25
04 (System) New version approved
2019-02-25
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Susan Hares , Mahesh Jethanandani , Keyur Patel
2019-02-25
04 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2018-11-10
03 (System) Document has expired
2018-11-07
03 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2018-11-07
03 Susan Hares Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-11-07
03 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-11-05
03 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-05-09
03 Mahesh Jethanandani New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-03.txt
2018-05-09
03 (System) New version approved
2018-05-09
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Shakir , Anees Shaikh , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Jethanandani , Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Rob Shakir , Anees Shaikh , Alex Zhdankin , Kevin D'Souza , Alex Clemm , Keyur Patel , Deepak Bansal
2018-05-09
03 Mahesh Jethanandani Uploaded new revision
2017-01-18
02 (System) Document has expired
2016-07-17
02 Anees Shaikh New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-02.txt
2016-01-18
01 Alvaro Retana Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2016-01-07
01 Anees Shaikh New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-01.txt
2015-08-18
00 Susan Hares This document now replaces draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model instead of None
2015-07-06
00 Anees Shaikh New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-00.txt