As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
Here is the RFCdiff between RFC8022 and RFC8022 version 4
(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 a standards track document, targeting the status of
proposed standard. It replaces and therefore obsoletes RFC 8022 also
a standards track document.
(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:
This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one
submodule. Together the modules form the core routing data model that
serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing
subsystem. These modules are augmented by additional YANG modules
defining data models for control-plane protocols, route filters, and other
functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks
for such extensions -- routes, Routing Information Bases (RIBs), and
This bis update to RFC 8022 fully conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA). Consequently, this document obsoletes
Working Group Summary
WGLC commenced Wed, 29 Nov 2017 completed on Fri, 15 Dec
2017. A draft revision was performed during the last call to address
editorial issues. The draft itself is a mechanical update to include
support for the Network Management Datastore Architecture
normatively in the data model for routing manangement.
RFC 8022 is widely implemented. The process of including
support for the NMDA model is ongoing and touches a number
of documents. The actions have been extensively reviewed.
Joel Jaeggli is the document shepherd, 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 document shepherd judges that this document and the related
documents are ready proceed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No such concerns are present. yang doctors review during IETF last
call is anticipated.
(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
The routing data model needs and has received extensive review inside
the routing area. There is no expectation that additional review beyond
those currently planned are necessary.
(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
The document shepherd has no specific concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
The shepherd is not aware of any IPR disclosures lodged against
RFC 8022 before or subsequent to publication or against rfc8022bis.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosures are filed against 8022 or 8022bis.
(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?
Working group consensus favors publication. NMDA inclusive updates
are largely uncontroversial.
(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 appeals are anticipated.
(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
Nits have been corrected and are effectively empty in draft 06
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
yang doctors review will occur during IETF last call.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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 normative references are not ready for publication or in an unclear state.
(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.
(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 8022 will be obsoleted and replaced by 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 considerations section is consistent with yang module drafts
and RFC 8022.
(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 registries are created.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
yang model validation has been performed on this draft.