YANG Tree Diagrams
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06

Note added 'RFC EDITOR NOTE (on draft version 5):
In this intro section:
  Today's common practice is to include the definition of the syntax
  used to represent a YANG module in every document that provides a
  tree diagram.  This practice has several disadvantages and the
  purpose of the document is to provide a single location for this
OLD:
"the document"
NEW:
"this document"'

[Ballot comment]
This is really accessible for those of us who don't speak YANG fluently, but have working groups that are starting on YANG models.

Thanks for doing it.

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

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, joelja@gmail.com, bclaise@cisco.com, Joel Jaeggli , draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Tree Diagrams) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'YANG Tree Diagrams'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-02-07. 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 captures the current syntax used in YANG module Tree
  Diagrams.  The purpose of the document is to provide a single
  location for this definition.  This syntax may be updated from time
  to time based on the evolution of the YANG language.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/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.

(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?

The proposed status is BCP

(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

  This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module Tree
  Diagrams.  The purpose of the document is to provide a single
  location for this definition.  This syntax may be updated from time
  to time based on the evolution of the YANG language.

Working Group Summary

Yang tree diagrams are perhaps unusually for yang not
intended specifically to be machine readable, but rather
to display with  maximum legibility spinlified graphical
representations of modules. the dicussion that led to the
current formulation is therefore somewhat unusual territory
for netmod. Nevertheless, the current approach has broad
working-group support.

Document Quality

There are known implementations of yang tree-diagram
rendering which produce results consistent with this document.

Personnel

Joel Jaeggli 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 shephard has performed a close reading of the document.

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

The document shepherd has no particular concerns regarding the review
depth of of the document. Interestingly enough there does not appear
to be much reason to perform yang doctor review on this document as it
has neither a model nor interoperability or architecture considerations
for yang embedded within the 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.

(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.

No specific concerns are present.

(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 or IPR claims having been made.
The history on the document shows the question having been asked of
authors and the working group.

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

No IPR claim have been files.

(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? 

WGLC, showed solid consensus for publication. minor changes were made
to address last call comments these are visible in draft 04/05 diffs

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt

(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 appeal is 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
thorough.

IDNITs complains about white space in one diagram, given the complexity
and the fact that legibility is the intended goal this is expected.

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

Theoretically this would be reviewed by yang doctors but as noted
that review may be of limited value. there are no yang validation
reviews required.

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

Informative references are identified. No normative references appear
to be required.

(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?

ietf-netmod-schema-mount
ietf-rtgwg-ni-model

are hopefully completed soon as well.

(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.

none are required.

(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 additional RFCs are modified 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).

No considerations are required of IANA.

(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 are required.

(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.

No formal code validation is required.

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--g0pA33j53cuFjgbIBK4FxRoTURksD31lS
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="KMooGcgAPiaUt2VfPao1OAsQxvhoX5rKN";
protected-headers="v1"
From: joel jaeggli
To: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Message-ID: <780f5479-6f7b-21b8-e9c7-741ae0063c3f@bogus.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request

--KMooGcgAPiaUt2VfPao1OAsQxvhoX5rKN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US

Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of the preparation for WG Last Call:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S
TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.



--KMooGcgAPiaUt2VfPao1OAsQxvhoX5rKN--

--g0pA33j53cuFjgbIBK4FxRoTURksD31lS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iF0EARECAB0WIQRcbgEEuvBAsFvTw4vwADWrtn9WsgUCWjlc7wAKCRDwADWrtn9W
sqZZAJ9yVF+56QD4LUSmVi1ktXcDS9KtMwCfbKjLht87t0wqFJNcIQeZ3t3ech8=
=NZI8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--g0pA33j53cuFjgbIBK4FxRoTURksD31lS--



Subject: Re: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request,draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:12:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Martin Bjorklund
To: joelja@bogus.com
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org

joel jaeggli  wrote:
> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>
> As part of the preparation for WG Last Call:
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft


/martin


>
> Please state either:
>
> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
> or
> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> (see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?
>
> If yes to the above, please state either:
>
> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
> or
> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"
>
> If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
> appropriate.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
> aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
> stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
> contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S
> TO LINES.
>
> If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
> as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
> the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
> aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
> participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
> undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
> and
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.
>
> Thank you,
> NetMod WG Chairs
>
> PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
> response.
>
>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams - IPR verfication request
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:07:33 -0500
From: Lou Berger
To: joel jaeggli , draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

Lou
(co-author)

On 12/19/2017 1:39 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Authors, Contributors, WG,
>
> As part of the preparation for WG Last Call:
>
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?
>
> Please state either:
>
> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
> or
> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
>
> If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> (see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?
>
> If yes to the above, please state either:
>
> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
> or
> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"
>
> If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
> appropriate.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
> above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
> aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
> stage until a response has been received from each author and listed
> contributor. NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S
> TO LINES.
>
> If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
> as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
> the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
> aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
> participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
> undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
> and
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.
>
> Thank you,
> NetMod WG Chairs
>
> PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
> response.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod