Skip to main content

YANG Library
draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-02-12
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2019-01-07
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-12-12
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-10-31
07 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2018-10-24
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-10-24
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2018-10-24
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2018-10-23
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2018-10-23
07 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-10-23
07 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-10-23
07 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-10-23
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2018-10-23
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-10-23
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-10-23
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-10-23
07 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2018-10-23
07 Ignas Bagdonas IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2018-10-17
07 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-07.txt
2018-10-17
07 (System) New version approved
2018-10-17
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton , Juergen Schoenwaelder
2018-10-17
07 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2018-10-11
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-10-11
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-10-10
06 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-10-10
06 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.

ID Nits reports:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446 …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.

ID Nits reports:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 16:

>      leaf checksum {
>        type string;
>        mandatory true;
>        description
>          "A server-generated checksum of the contents of the
>          'yang-library' tree.  The server MUST change the value of
>          this leaf if the information represented by the
>          'yang-library' tree, except 'yang-library/checksum', has
>          changed.";

I suspect that changing the name of this node in the tree would be disruptive
at this point in time, but this is clearly not a checksum ("There is no
requirement that the same information always results in the same 'checksum'
value"). I would suggest updating the description to use the term "version
identifier" or something similar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§8.2:

>  [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
>            BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
>            .

Since RFC 8340 is required to understand the syntax used in the tree diagrams
used by draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, RFC 8340 should be normative rather
than informative.
2018-10-10
06 Adam Roach Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach
2018-10-10
06 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.

ID Nits reports:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446 …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.

ID Nits reports:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 16:

>      leaf checksum {
>        type string;
>        mandatory true;
>        description
>          "A server-generated checksum of the contents of the
>          'yang-library' tree.  The server MUST change the value of
>          this leaf if the information represented by the
>          'yang-library' tree, except 'yang-library/checksum', has
>          changed.";

I suspect that changing the name of this node in the tree would be disruptive
at this point in time, but this is clearly not a checksum ("There is no
requirement that the same information always results in the same 'checksum'
value"). I would suggest updating the description to use the term "version
identifier" or something similar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§8.2:

>  [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
>            BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
>            .

Since this document is required to understand the syntax used in the tree
diagrams used by this document, it should be normative rather than informative.
2018-10-10
06 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-10-10
06 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Just a few minor comments:

Substantive Comments:

§2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD have a revision."
Why …
[Ballot comment]
Just a few minor comments:

Substantive Comments:

§2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD have a revision."
Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not to have a revision? What are the consequences?

Editorial Comments:

§1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.

§2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.
-- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?
-- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.
2018-10-10
06 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-10-10
06 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-10-10
06 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-10-10
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-10-10
06 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-10-09
06 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2018-10-08
06 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
It's interesting that multiple entries for full-fledged module
implementation are forbidden, but import-only modules can have multiple
(different) entries.  I'm not familiar enough …
[Ballot comment]
It's interesting that multiple entries for full-fledged module
implementation are forbidden, but import-only modules can have multiple
(different) entries.  I'm not familiar enough with the YANG ecosystem to
understand why one is more common or more reasonable to permit than the
other.
2018-10-08
06 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-10-08
06 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-10-08
06 Ignas Bagdonas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2018-10-08
06 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-10-02
06 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-10-11
2018-10-02
06 Ignas Bagdonas IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2018-10-02
06 Ignas Bagdonas Ballot has been issued
2018-10-02
06 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-10-02
06 Ignas Bagdonas Created "Approve" ballot
2018-10-02
06 Ignas Bagdonas Ballot writeup was changed
2018-06-30
06 Erik Kline Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Erik Kline. Sent review to list.
2018-06-28
06 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2018-06-28
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-06-26
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-06-26
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns section of the IETF XML registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

the existing registration for:

ID: yang:ietf-yang-library
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library
Filename: ns/yang/ietf-yang-library.txt
Reference: [RFC7895]

will have the Registrant Contact changed to the IESG and the Reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the UANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Name: ietf-yang-library
File: ietf-yang-library@2016-06-21.yang
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library
Reference: [RFC7895]

will have the Reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-06-15
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Franke
2018-06-15
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Daniel Franke
2018-06-15
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2018-06-15
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2018-06-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2018-06-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2018-06-14
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-06-14
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, Mahesh Jethanandani , draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-06-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, Mahesh Jethanandani , draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Library) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Library'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-06-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a YANG library that provides information
  about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used by a
  network management server.  Simple caching mechanisms are provided to
  allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information.  This
  version of the YANG library supports the Network Management Datastore
  Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
  management server and the schema that is used by each of these
  datastores.

  This document obsoletes RFC 7895.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2018-06-14
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-06-14
06 Ignas Bagdonas Last call was requested
2018-06-14
06 Ignas Bagdonas Last call announcement was generated
2018-06-14
06 Ignas Bagdonas Ballot approval text was generated
2018-06-14
06 Ignas Bagdonas Ballot writeup was generated
2018-06-14
06 Ignas Bagdonas IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2018-06-12
06 Ignas Bagdonas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani
(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? …
(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?

This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard and it indicates it as such on title header page. The document is a "bis" version of RFC 7895, which was also a Proposed Standard.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document describes a YANG library that provides information
about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used by a
network management server.  Simple caching mechanisms are provided to
allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information.  This
version of the YANG library supports the Network Management Datastore
Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
management server and the schema that is used by each of these
datastores.

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?

There was robust amount of discussion in the WG about this document. There was quite a bit of discussion around the deprecation of the current module-list container and its replacement by the new structure that caters to NMDA requirements. In the end, the WG felt the changes were not too onerous to implement for the ability to support different schemas for different datastores.

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?

A virtual interim was held in December 2017 by the WG to address some of the more pressing issues raised which resulted in an update of the document. Vendors have indicated a plan to implement the specification, including Tail-f.

Finally, there was a YANG Doctors review of the document by Reshad Rehman that resulted in a few changes to the document. There is one comment from the YANG Doctors review that was agreed upon, but is not reflected in the latest version of the draft and is related to changing the name of the grouping 'implementation-parameters' to 'module-implementation-parameters'. The authors have been asked to make the change.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.

(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 has reviewed the document, and found a few nits which have been posted to the WG for the authors to address. While none will prevent the document from making progress, it sure would be nice if they are addressed before IESG reviews the document.

There are two errors reported as part of YANG validation that should be addressed before the document is sent forth.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth, and breath of the reviews that have been performed. Several folks have reviewed the document and provided critical comments which have been discussed and addressed by the document authors.

(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 Shepherd does not believe a broader review is needed at this time.

(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.

The Document Shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues related to the document.

(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, each authors has confirmed on the WG mailing list that they are not aware of any IPRs related to the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No. No IPR disclosure has been filed against the 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 WG seems to understand the impact of the change and have asked questions that indicate that they are agreeable with the changes being suggested. But the true impact of this will be felt only once servers have implemented NMDA datastores and have different schemas for different datastores.

(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, no one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent, other than questioning the need for NMDA overall. Andy Bierman, who is one of the co-authors of the original RFC, has substantial reservations about the need to address operational-state of a configuration.

(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.

A run of idnits was performed and issues raised from it were included as part of Shepherd review.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document was referred for a YANG Doctors review and such a review was performed on the document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes, all the references in the document have been identified as either normative or informative. Some of those references might change by the time the document is ready for publication, as the references make progress.

(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?

None of the normative references in the document should be a problem. The only normative reference in the document which is marked I-D, is now a RFC.

(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. There are no downward normative 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.

This document will obsolete RFC 7895, as noted in the title page, and the document outlines a upgrade path for implementations that want to move from RFC 7895 to 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 5226).

The IANA consideration section outlines the changes the document is raising. In particular, the document specifies that it is taking over registry entries made by RFC 7895. The only question I would have is if a RFC Editor note is needed to update the IANA registration to point to the new RFC number once this document is approved.

(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 new IANA registries have been requested.

(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.

The Document Shepherd did try to validate the XML example in the document in the Appendix section, and pointed the same to the authors as part of the Shepherd review. The error message was not very instructive, and as it turns out is on the module and not the example. Till the error is fixed, it would be difficult to validate the example.
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani Responsible AD changed to Ignas Bagdonas
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-04-09
06 Mahesh Jethanandani Changed document writeup
2018-04-08
06 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt
2018-04-08
06 (System) New version approved
2018-04-08
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton , Juergen Schoenwaelder
2018-04-08
06 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2018-04-04
05 Mahesh Jethanandani Changed document writeup
2018-04-04
05 Mahesh Jethanandani Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-04-04
05 Mahesh Jethanandani Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-03-20
05 Benoît Claise Notification list changed to Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
2018-03-20
05 Benoît Claise Document shepherd changed to Mahesh Jethanandani
2018-02-27
05 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-05.txt
2018-02-27
05 (System) New version approved
2018-02-27
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton , Juergen Schoenwaelder
2018-02-27
05 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2018-02-19
04 Reshad Rahman Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Reshad Rahman. Sent review to list.
2018-02-03
04 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman
2018-02-03
04 Mehmet Ersue Request for Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Reshad Rahman
2018-02-01
04 Mahesh Jethanandani Requested Last Call review by YANGDOCTORS
2018-02-01
04 Mahesh Jethanandani IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-01-29
04 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-04.txt
2018-01-29
04 (System) New version approved
2018-01-29
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen , Robert Wilton , Juergen Schoenwaelder
2018-01-29
04 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2018-01-17
03 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-03.txt
2018-01-17
03 (System) New version approved
2018-01-17
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen , netconf-chairs@ietf.org
2018-01-17
03 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-12-13
02 Mahesh Jethanandani Added to session: interim-2017-netconf-01
2017-10-30
02 Robert Wilton New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-02.txt
2017-10-30
02 (System) New version approved
2017-10-30
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Martin Bjorklund , Andy Bierman , Kent Watsen
2017-10-30
02 Robert Wilton Uploaded new revision
2017-08-31
01 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-01.txt
2017-08-31
01 (System) New version approved
2017-08-31
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andy Bierman , Martin Bjorklund , Kent Watsen
2017-08-31
01 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision
2017-08-25
00 Kent Watsen This document now replaces draft-nmdsdt-netconf-rfc7895bis instead of None
2017-08-24
00 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-00.txt
2017-08-24
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-08-24
00 Martin Björklund Set submitter to "Martin Bjorklund ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: netconf-chairs@ietf.org
2017-08-24
00 Martin Björklund Uploaded new revision