Document Writeup for draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
(1) What type of RFC is being requested?
Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The type of RFC being requested is Proposed Standard since this document
includes YANG model that is being standardized. It also serves as framework to
evaluate the set of YANG models that have already been developed or are under
development, and helps identify any missing models or details. It is also
viewed as driving requirements for protocol configuration model so that the
service parameters can be mapped into inputs used by the protocol models.
The type of RFC has been 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.
Technical Summary:
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for communication
between customers and network operators, and to provide input to automated
control and configuration applications used to deliver a Layer 3 Provider
Provisioned VPN service. The document is limited to the BGP PE-based VPNs
as described in RFC4110 and RFC4364. This model is intended to be
instantiated at management system to deliver the overall service. This
model is not a configuration model to be used directly on network elements.
This model provides an abstracted view of the Layer 3 IPVPN service
configuration components. It will be up to a management system to take this
as an input and use specific configurations models to configure the
different network elements to deliver the service. How configuration of
network elements is done is out of scope of the document.
Working Group Summary:
Consensus was complete in the working group after one and half year of
development. A first WGLC was largely silent reflecting (the chairs believe)
satisfaction with previous discussions. But after solicitation, a number of
people from network operators responded that they considered the document
ready. A few last-minute questions were received and handled.
Document Quality:
The shepherd is aware of a proof-of-concept implementation based on an earlier
version of the document. This document is ready to ship, but there are a few
minor editorial changes arising from document shepherd review - these can be
handled during IETF last call.
Personnel:
Qin Wu is the Document Shepherd.
Benoit Claise is the responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called.
Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to RFC6020 should be
replaced by RFC 7950 since YANG has been proposed to be used for RESTCONF and
YANG version 1.1, i.e.,RFC7950 can be used to well support RESTCONF.
This and a few minor editorial changes arising from document shepherd review
can be handled during IETF last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that
have been performed?
There are no concerns from document Shepherd.
(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.
The early review were requested from YANG Doctor.
In addition, the documents already received additional sufficient review from
Landry and Jean-Philippe representing the operators.
A final YANG Doctor review has been commissioned and is promised to arrive
during IETF last call.
(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?
No concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
The authors confirmed conformance to BCPs 78 and 79 during the work on the
document. They have just been asked to explicitly reconfirm this for the
completed document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
No
(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?
There is solid consensus of all people who have contributed to L3SM Service
Model.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
None.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
One minor Nits was found in this document is:
"
** There are 31 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
one being 13 characters in excess of 72.
"
This is a function of how the YANG tree is presented as a figure by XML2RFC.
The RFC Editor can resolve the issue.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Early YANG Doctor review was provided.
A further YANG Doctor review has been requested.
The module parses cleanly.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No. All normative references are to RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
No. All normative references are upward.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No. No impact on status of existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section.
The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to
create and populate the new registry.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations.
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, etc.
ID-NITS done.
YANG validation done.
XML code snippet validation done.
No BNF, MIB definitions in draft.