The MPLS working group request that
draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang
is published a an RFC on the standards track
(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?
As a YANG model this document should be published as a Standard track RFC.
(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:
The MPLS base model augments the core routing model defined in
RFC8349 with additional data specific to MPLS technology as described
in MPLS Architecture RFC3031.
RFC8349 requires specific YANG augmentations by any such routing protocol
and these have been included.
The MPLS base model serves as a basis for future development of MPLS
data models covering specific MPLS feature(s) and sub-system(s).
The main purpose of the MPLS base is to provide building blocks for more
complicated and data models, including different control plane protocols,
and advanced MPLS functions.
To this end, it is expected that the MPLS base data model will be
augmented by other modules developed at IETF (e.g. by MPLS and TEAS
working groups).
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?
The working group is solidly behind that the document.
Document Quality:
We understand that there are implementations and intents to implement
this YANG model, from a large number of vendors. However we have not
earlier documented implementations or intent to implement.
An implementation poll has therefore been sent to the working group
mailing list.
Tom Petch has done very thorough review, and had a positive influence
on the document.
THe document has been reviewed by the Yang Doctors several times.
Personnel:
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
Deborah Brungard 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.
When this document came online the Shepherd reviewed, but at that time it
was not clear who the shepherd would be so this was a wg chair review to look
at what was new.
The shepherd was appointed just prior to the wglc, but reviewed the document
at wgap and wglc.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns.
(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 document has been reviewed bu the YANG doctors on the request of the
authors prior to wgap and on the request of the Shepherd (via the authors)
at wglc.
(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 such 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?
All the authors and contributors have confirmed that that they are unaware
of any IPRs.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There are no IPRs disclosed against 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?
The working group stands behinds this document.
(10) 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.)
No such threats.
(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.
The Shepherd has not identified any other nits than what the nits tool
identify there is a BCP 14 boiler plate in section 1.1 Terminology, but the
rest of the document does not use any requirement language.
Note: the Shepherd wants to discuss this with the authors since there are
lower case musts in YANG Module, and the shepherd does not understand if
they are equivalent to BCP 14 language.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The YANG doctors have reviewed the document at several occasion. No further
formal reviews are required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes - all references are split into normative and informative references,
though the Shepherd would like to understand why RFC 3031 is an informative
reference. Especially since the definition of MPLS push, pop and swap
operations comes from RFC 3031. Same goes for RFC 3032 that defines the
MPLS Label Stack encoding.
(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?
All the normative references are Standard Track RFCs or BCPs.
(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 downward references.
(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.
There will be n o status change of any other RFC when this documents is
published.
However the development of this draft has resulted in an errata against
RFC8349. For route entries that appear IPv4/IPv6 RIBs, those are keyed by
address and having the leaf "destination-address" makes sense. However, route
entries that appear in MPLS RIB are keyed by MPLS local label, so it would be
misleading to have a leaf named 'destination-address' for them. Hence, an
errata to relax the 'MUST' in RFC8349 will be filed by the authors of this
document.
(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).
The IANA section has been reviewed several time during the development of the
document.
(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.
No such registries created.
(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.
The YANG module is checked every time the document is posted.
The YANG module is published on github and reviews, issues are tracked under
the project. Pyang, yanglint, and yangvalidator tools were all used to
ensure the module compiles and is free of errors. Pyang --ietf is used to
ensure YANG module is compliant with IETF RFC YANG styles.
(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?
All the tools mentioned above were used to validate the YANG module is free
from errors. YANG module is compliant with NMDA