As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
(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:
This document presents a base YANG Data model for connectionless
Operations Administration, and Maintenance(OAM) protocols. It
provides a technology-independent abstraction of key OAM constructs
for connectionless protocols.
Working Group Summary
This document is the product of an early split of LIME YANG
Models into Connection-Oriented (C-O) OAM Models and
Connectionless (CL, i.e., this) OAM Models. Further, the
CL Model is further split into the Model (this document)
and the retrieval methods (adjunct document).
There are plans of and implementations of this specification.
This includes at least two different implementations of
the model, as well as product and demos at Bits-n-Bytes.
Further, there are plans to finalize the implementation of
The WG was very active in reviewing these documents.
Notably, participants of the BFD and MPLS WGs were
Additionally, worth mentioning Carl Moberg's YANG
Doctor review which resulted in many fixes and
Carlos Pignataro 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
This version of the document is ready to be sent to the responsible AD.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns regarding both breath and depth of reviews.
(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
YANG, with review taken place by YANG Doctors (Carl Moberg)
(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
(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, during WG adoption.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
(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.)
No threat of appeal.
One working group participant has expressed discontent several
times. In particular, this participant has expressed concern that
his comments have not been addressed and also that he has
not been given enough time to review. Part of that discussion can
be seen at:
The WG held 4 "Editathon" interims in which we went comment-by-comment
hosting a discussion and providing a disposition: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/past#lime
Further, both LIME WG Chairs believe there's been ample opportunity
to share review and comments in multiple occasions, and that
the document editors have responded timely and incorporated
comments. In fact, multiple deadlines were given to this participant.
Many of these deadlines were not respected, yet the WG and document
editors waited and incorporated late comments just to get another
deadline. This caused delay and broke the WG flow.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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 5226).
All looks good.
(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.
(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.
YANG Doctors Review.