IANA Interface Type YANG Module
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-10

[Ballot comment]
was:

dicuss held on behalf of iana

Hello all,

The current version (-10) looks fine.  Indeed, the numerical value is no
longer presented in the YANG module anymore in recent versions.  Please
check with Joel if he can clear his Discuss.

Also, we will not make any changes to the name and description of the
value 273 in the "ifType definitions" registry at this time.

Btw, just an observation of the "ifType definitions" registry.  If a new
ifType value is later requested, it will update the following registries
in addition to the "ifType definitions" registry:

The transmission number values
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-
7)
IANAifType-MIB (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib)
The 'new' iana-if-type YANG module (TBD)


Thanks,
~pl

[Ballot comment]
Following discussions with Benoit on the Discuss text included below for reference, I think the matter is in hand and I entrust it to his resolution.

I have a short question for Benoit, which I am sure will be
simply resolved.

IANA is requested to add this new Note to the "ifType definitions"
  registry:

    When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-if-type
    must be updated as defined in RFC XXXX.

Please can you help me understand the logistics here. If
I go to IANA with a request for the new-foo interface, what takes
place to cause the YANG module update?

[Ballot discuss]
I have a short question for Benoit, which I am sure will be
simply resolved.

IANA is requested to add this new Note to the "ifType definitions"
  registry:

    When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-if-type
    must be updated as defined in RFC XXXX.

Please can you help me understand the logistics here. If
I go to IANA with a request for the new-foo interface, what takes
place to cause the YANG module update?

[Ballot comment]
I am not a YANG expert, but have a couple of concerns about the
way this module is handed to IANA.

---

I think you should remove...

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
        the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
    // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove this
    // note.

...from the main description clause.

This is because the entire module will be lifted on to the IANA web page
preserving this note. When updates are made to the module by IANA the
note will be wrong, but is unlikely to be removed.

Indeed, since the normative version will in any case be the web page not
the RFC, the note is de trop.

---

Similarly...

    // RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication
    // and remove this note.
    revision 2013-12-07 { 
      description
        "Initial revision.";
      reference
        "RFC XXXX: IANA Interface Type YANG Module";
    }

Do you expect each modification by IANA to generate a new version with
a new date? I don't think so. I think the purpose of handing it to IANA
is that it is a living module that can safely be extended at any time by
IANA without sparking a new revision.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-09.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA has questions about one of the requested IANA actions in
this draft document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, a new registry will be created called the iana-if-type YANG module.

The iana-if-type module is intended to reflect, but not mirror, the "ifType definitions" registry maintained by IANA at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

When an interface type is added to ifType definitions registry, a new "identity" statement must be added to the iana-if-type

1) the name of the "identity" is the same as the corresponding enumeration in the IANAifType-MIB.

The following substatements to the "identity" statement should be defined:

"base": Contains the value "iana-interface-type".

"status": Include only if a registration has been deprecated (use the value "deprecated") or obsoleted (use the value "obsolete").

"description": Replicate the description from the registry, if any.

"reference": Replicate the reference from the registry, if any, and add the title of the document.

2) Unassigned or reserved values will not be allowed in the module.

3) When the iana-if-type YANG module is updated because of a change in the "ifType definitions registry, a note will be put into the registry indicating the date and nature of the revision.

In addition, IANA will add this new note to the exiting "ifType definitions" registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-if-type must be updated as defined in [ RFC-to-be ].

Finally, the Reference text in the "ifType definitions" registry needs to be updated as:

OLD:
[RFC1213][RFC2863]

NEW:
[RFC1213][RFC2863][ RFC-to-be ]

QUESTIONS:
Q1: Is this new requested registry "iana-if-type YANG module"
a brand new and standalone registry or a registry be added to
an existing registry listed in http://www.iana.org/protocols?
In another word, are you requiring a brand new and separate URL
for this new requested registry? 

Q2: What is the registration procedure to add a new interface type
to this registry?  If we missed that, apologies and please clarify.

Second, in the namespace subregistry of the IETF XML registry located at:

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

ID: iana-if-type
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type
Filename:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, this document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry located at:

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

as follows:

name: iana-if-type
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type
prefix: ianaift
module:
reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands these three actions to be the only ones required 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IANA Interface Type YANG Module) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Interface Type YANG Module'
  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 2013-12-23. 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 defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG
  module.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts:
    draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg
    draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type
    draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cf

(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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard)

And one document that describes supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (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

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12

This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.
The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters
for the collection of statistics.

draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations.
     
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG
module for interface type definitions.


Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following.

While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in
April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between
operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last
call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating
operational state from configuration management and that this should have
been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back
from IESG review and worked to add this to the model.


Document Quality:

This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
additional review from Dave Thaler.


Personnel
David Kessens 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
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as
this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by
the rfc editor.


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

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(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.

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(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.

None

(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?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

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

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?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(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.

(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.

No.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(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.

(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.

No.

(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).

Done.

(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.

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.

N/A

(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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 (Proposed standard)

And two document that describe supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00  (Proposed standard, obsoletes rfc 6021)
draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 (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

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.

draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09

This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
implementations.
     
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00

This document introduces a collection of common data types to be used
with the YANG data modeling language.  This document obsoletes RFC
6021.

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04

This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type and
iana-afn-safi YANG modules, for interface type definitions, and Address
Family Numbers (AFN) and Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI),
respectively.


Working Group Summary:

The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
consensus with nothing special worth mentioning.
   

Document Quality:

This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
additional review from Dave Thaler.

Personnel
David Kessens 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.

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

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(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.

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(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.

None

(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?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

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

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?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(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.

(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.

No.

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

N/A

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

Yes.

(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?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(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.

(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.

RFC 6021 is obsoleted.

(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).

Done.

(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.

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.

N/A