Skip to main content

The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-08-29
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-08-05
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-08-01
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2016-07-26
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2016-06-28
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-06-28
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2016-06-27
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-06-27
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2016-06-21
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-06-17
14 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-06-17
14 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-06-17
14 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-06-17
14 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-06-17
14 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-06-17
14 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-06-17
14 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-06-17
14 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-06-17
14 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2016-06-17
14 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14.txt
2016-06-10
13 Martin Björklund IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-06-10
13 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-13.txt
2016-05-26
12 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-05-23
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Serious Issues. Reviewer: Lionel Morand.
2016-05-19
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-05-19
12 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2016-05-19
12 Benoît Claise [Ballot comment]
The OPS-DIR comments need to be addressed before publication.
2016-05-19
12 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2016-05-19
12 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot comment]
Thanks authors and Benoit for the clarifications on why this does not obsolete RFC6020.
2016-05-19
12 Suresh Krishnan Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-19
12 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I reviewed YANG 1.0 in 2010. I am glad to see YANG 1.1 in IESG review! I think this version is an improvement. …
[Ballot comment]
I reviewed YANG 1.0 in 2010. I am glad to see YANG 1.1 in IESG review! I think this version is an improvement.

Nit:
9.12.4.  Usage Example

  The following is a union of an int32 an enumeration:

Typo: int32 *and* enumeration



In response to Suresh:

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

    type my-base-str-type {
      // illegal length refinement
      length "1..999";
    }

refinements must be more restrictive, 999 > 255 (the original length limit).
2016-05-19
12 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Yes from No Record
2016-05-19
12 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In response to Suresh:

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

    type my-base-str-type …
[Ballot comment]
In response to Suresh:

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

    type my-base-str-type {
      // illegal length refinement
      length "1..999";
    }

refinements must be more restrictive, 999 > 255 (the original length limit).
2016-05-19
12 Alexey Melnikov Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov
2016-05-19
12 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-05-18
12 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-05-18
12 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-05-18
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot comment]
Dale's Gen-ART review warrants a response.
2016-05-18
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-05-18
12 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-05-18
12 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Following the discussion from Stephen's comments.
2016-05-18
12 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-05-18
12 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-05-18
12 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- I'm not sure I properly understand what the rpc and action
statements really do, but can an action statement result in
sensitive …
[Ballot comment]

- I'm not sure I properly understand what the rpc and action
statements really do, but can an action statement result in
sensitive information being in a place in the model that
previously only contained non-sensitive information? If so,
does that warrant a mention in the security considerations,
like the existing one about RPCs? (I mean the 3rd para of
section 17.)

- anydata (section 7.10) is new, right? Doesn't that mean
that new kinds of stuff (that might be dangerous) can be
found in a module? So if it's true that before yang 1.1 a
parser only had to be careful to parse XML correctly, and if
the addition of anydata means that a parser (via some
extension mechanism) might now be parsing say images, (say
via ImageMagick:-) then that'd likely create new potential
vulnerabilities and might be worth a mention in section 17.
2016-05-18
12 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-05-17
12 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
Meta comment:

Shouldn't this document obsolete RFC6020. There is no Obsoletes: tag in the draft

Section 4.2.4:

s/A reference a data tree …
[Ballot comment]
Meta comment:

Shouldn't this document obsolete RFC6020. There is no Obsoletes: tag in the draft

Section 4.2.4:

s/A reference a data tree node/A reference to a data tree node

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

    type my-base-str-type {
      // illegal length refinement
      length "1..999";
    }


IANA considerations:

Not sure what is the correct method for doing this in -bis documents, but I would have expected a note that instructs IANA to switch references to RFC6020 in IANA registries over to this one.
2016-05-17
12 Suresh Krishnan Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-17
12 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2016-05-17
12 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
Meta comment:

Shouldn't this document obsolete RFC6060. There is no Obsoletes: tag in the draft

Section 4.2.4:

s/A reference a data tree …
[Ballot comment]
Meta comment:

Shouldn't this document obsolete RFC6060. There is no Obsoletes: tag in the draft

Section 4.2.4:

s/A reference a data tree node/A reference to a data tree node

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

    type my-base-str-type {
      // illegal length refinement
      length "1..999";
    }


IANA considerations:

Not sure what is the correct method for doing this in -bis documents, but I would have expected a note that instructs IANA to switch references to RFC6020 in IANA registries over to this one.
2016-05-17
12 Suresh Krishnan Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2016-05-17
12 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-05-17
12 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-05-17
12 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-05-17
12 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-05-17
12 Benoît Claise Ballot has been issued
2016-05-17
12 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-05-17
12 Benoît Claise Created "Approve" ballot
2016-05-17
12 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2016-05-13
12 Dale Worley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Dale Worley.
2016-05-12
12 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-05-06
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-05-06
12 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Capability URNs subregistry of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/netconf-capability-urns/

a single, new Capability URN will be registered as follows:

Capability: :yang-library
Capability Identifier: urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:yang-library:1.0
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands this to be the only action 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-05-06
12 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley
2016-05-06
12 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley
2016-04-28
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2016-04-28
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2016-04-28
12 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-04-28
12 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: bclaise@cisco.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: bclaise@cisco.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language
WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
- 'The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language'
  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 2016-05-12. 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.

The following URL https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt, highlighting the changes with RFC6020,  might help for your review.

Abstract


  YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
  state data, remote procedure calls, and notifications for network
  management protocols.  This document also specifies the YANG mappings
  to the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis/ballot/


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


2016-04-28
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-19
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Last call was requested
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Ballot approval text was generated
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was generated
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was changed
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise Last call announcement was generated
2016-04-28
12 Benoît Claise
Benoit's note: the following URL https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt might help for your review.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document …
Benoit's note: the following URL https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt might help for your review.

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.

(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?

  Proposed Standard (Standards Track indicated on the title page)

(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

  YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
  state data, remote procedure calls, and notifications for network
  management protocols like the Network Configuration Protocol
  (NETCONF). This document defines YANG version 1.1.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update of YANG 1.0 as defined in RFC 6020. The working
  group used an issue tracker and a number of virtual interim meetings
  to discuss all bug fix proposals and feature requests. The document
  went through two WG last calls and there is broad consensus on the
  final version.

Document Quality

  Recent versions of the open source pyang implementation support this
  specification. Additional commercial implementations are expected to
  follow soon.

Personnel

  Juergen Schoenwaelder is the document shepherd and Benoit Claise is
  the responsible AD.

(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 carefully reviewed the specification
  during WG last call and subsequently checked all diffs. The document
  believes that the document is ready for publication.

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

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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 does not seem to require such a specific review from a broader
  perspective since it is an incremental update to YANG 1.1 which does
  not change the usage of XML and it does not touch on protocols such
  as AAA, DNS, DHCP.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about 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.

  The WG was asked to report any IPR disclosures in December 2015 and
  nothing was reported. The document editor reported that he is not aware
  of any IPR related to this 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

(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 the
  YANG 1.1 effort.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  None found (idnits seems to generate a few false positives)

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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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. The normative reference to draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 is
  not an issue since this document is sent to the IESG at the same
  time as this document.

(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.

  The document has normative references to three W3C specifications
  that are believed to be stable (and that have been there also in
  YANG 1.0 [RFC 6020]).

(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. YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] is not expected to change its status since
  there are data models on the standards-track that conform to YANG
  1.0. YANG 1.0 may be considered for retirement once all data models
  have naturally been updated to a future version of YANG.

(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 document continues to use the YANG 1.0 IANA allocations made in
  RFC 6020. There is one new NETCONF capability allocation in this
  document, which has been verified to be complete.
 
(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.

  The ABNF has been checked against Bill Fenner's bap ABNF tool
  (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi). Since bap does not
  yet support RFC 7405 (case sensitive strings), it was necessary
  to replace the '%s' notation for keywords with ''.
2016-04-28
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-04-28
12 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt
2016-04-27
11 Benoît Claise AD review completed
2016-04-27
11 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-04-20
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand
2016-04-20
11 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand
2016-02-19
11 Benoît Claise IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder
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 …
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.

(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?

  Proposed Standard (Standards Track indicated on the title page)

(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

  YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
  state data, remote procedure calls, and notifications for network
  management protocols like the Network Configuration Protocol
  (NETCONF). This document defines YANG version 1.1.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update of YANG 1.0 as defined in RFC 6020. The working
  group used an issue tracker and a number of virtual interim meetings
  to discuss all bug fix proposals and feature requests. The document
  went through two WG last calls and there is broad consensus on the
  final version.

Document Quality

  Recent versions of the open source pyang implementation support this
  specification. Additional commercial implementations are expected to
  follow soon.

Personnel

  Juergen Schoenwaelder is the document shepherd and Benoit Claise is
  the responsible AD.

(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 carefully reviewed the specification
  during WG last call and subsequently checked all diffs. The document
  believes that the document is ready for publication.

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

  The shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews performed.

(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 does not seem to require such a specific review from a broader
  perspective since it is an incremental update to YANG 1.1 which does
  not change the usage of XML and it does not touch on protocols such
  as AAA, DNS, DHCP.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about 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.

  The WG was asked to report any IPR disclosures in December 2015 and
  nothing was reported. The document editor reported that he is not aware
  of any IPR related to this 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

(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 the
  YANG 1.1 effort.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  None found (idnits seems to generate a few false positives)

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

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(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. The normative reference to draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 is
  not an issue since this document is sent to the IESG at the same
  time as this document.

(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.

  The document has normative references to three W3C specifications
  that are believed to be stable (and that have been there also in
  YANG 1.0 [RFC 6020]).

(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. YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] is not expected to change its status since
  there are data models on the standards-track that conform to YANG
  1.0. YANG 1.0 may be considered for retirement once all data models
  have naturally been updated to a future version of YANG.

(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 document continues to use the YANG 1.0 IANA allocations made in
  RFC 6020. There is one new NETCONF capability allocation in this
  document, which has been verified to be complete.
 
(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.

  The ABNF has been checked against Bill Fenner's bap ABNF tool
  (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi). Since bap does not
  yet support RFC 7405 (case sensitive strings), it was necessary
  to replace the '%s' notation for keywords with ''.
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2016-02-16
11 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed document writeup
2016-02-16
11 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt
2016-02-15
10 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed document writeup
2016-02-15
10 Jürgen Schönwälder Changed document writeup
2016-02-04
10 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-10.txt
2016-01-15
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2016-01-15
09 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2015-12-15
09 Jürgen Schönwälder IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-12-15
09 Jürgen Schönwälder Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-12-11
09 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09.txt
2015-10-19
08 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from "Juergen Schoenwaelder"  to (None)
2015-09-23
07 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07.txt
2015-07-06
06 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-06.txt
2015-05-22
05 Jürgen Schönwälder Notification list changed to "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
2015-05-22
05 Jürgen Schönwälder Document shepherd changed to Jürgen Schönwälder
2015-05-04
05 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-05.txt
2015-03-09
04 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-04.txt
2015-01-05
03 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-03.txt
2014-11-14
02 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-02.txt
2014-10-02
01 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-01.txt
2014-07-03
00 Martin Björklund New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-00.txt