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 |