YANG Data Model for Network Instances
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-02-28
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-01-21
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-12-12
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-11-07
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2018-03-26
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2018-03-20
|
12 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-12.txt |
2018-03-20
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-20
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Dean Bogdanovic , Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Lou Berger |
2018-03-20
|
12 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-01
|
11 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-11.txt |
2018-03-01
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-01
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-03-01
|
11 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-21
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-02-20
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2018-02-20
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-02-20
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-10.txt |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-13
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-02-13
|
10 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-08
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2018-02-08
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-02-08
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise The title should be: "YANG module for network instance" This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly … [Ballot comment] Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise The title should be: "YANG module for network instance" This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract. No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in: The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as: Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example. ================================================================ Some more feedback from Martin Bjorklund, as YANG doctor: In 3.1 they have: The network-instance module is structured to facilitate the definition of information models for specific types ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This should probably be "data models" -------------------------------- In 3.1 they show the pre-NMDA split tree: augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" { case l3vpn { container l3vpn { ... } container l3vpn-state { ... } } } this should be just: augment "/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type" { case l3vpn { container l3vpn { ... } } } -------------------------------- same in 3.1.2: +--rw (ni-type)? | +--:(l3vpn) | +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn | | ... // config data | +--ro l3vpn:l3vpn-state | | ... // state data should be +--rw (ni-type)? | +--:(l3vpn) | +--rw l3vpn:l3vpn | | ... ------------------- The example in appendix B.2 uses "ietf-routing:routing-state" and "ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state" but that node is pre-NMDA, and deprecated in 8022bis and 7022bis. This example should probably be updated. |
2018-02-08
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] All of the examples in §B.1 use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update these to use all-IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. … [Ballot comment] All of the examples in §B.1 use IPv4 addresses exclusively. Please update these to use all-IPv6 or a mix of IPv4 and IPv6. See for details. |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise The title should be: "YANG module for network instance" This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly … [Ballot comment] Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise The title should be: "YANG module for network instance" This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract. No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in: The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as: Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example. |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-02-07
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-02-07
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-02-06
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-02-06
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-02-06
|
09 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09.txt |
2018-02-06
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-06
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-02-06
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-05
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Two minor editorial comments: 1) Sec 1.2: I'm surprised to see an open issue listed here. Is there already any plan to address … [Ballot comment] Two minor editorial comments: 1) Sec 1.2: I'm surprised to see an open issue listed here. Is there already any plan to address this somehow or is that listed to inform the reader, however, in the second case I would probably rather call it 'limitation' or something like this... 2) Sec 2: "In this document, we consider network devices that support protocols and functions defined within the IETF Routing Area, e.g, routers, firewalls, and hosts. " I assume that this yang module can also be used for routing protocols and functions that have not been defined in the IETF? |
2018-02-05
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-02-03
|
08 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-08.txt |
2018-02-03
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-03
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-02-03
|
08 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-03
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2018-02-03
|
07 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-07.txt |
2018-02-03
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-03
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-02-03
|
07 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-01-31
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-01-31
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-01-30
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-30
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ a single, new namespace will be registered as follows: ID: yang:ietf-network-instance URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-network-instance Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. If there is no expert designated for the registry, we will work with the IESG to have one assigned. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows: Name: ietf-network-instance File: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Maintained by IANA? Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-network-instance Prefix: ni Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> What should be the entry for the registry value "Maintained by IANA?" for this new YANG module? While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published. The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-01-19
|
06 | Liang Xia | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Liang Xia. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2018-01-18
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-31): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Yingzhen Qu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, akatlas@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-31): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Yingzhen Qu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (YANG Network Instances) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Network Instances' 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 2018-01-31. 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 a network instance module. This module can be used to manage the virtual resource partitioning that may be present on a network device. Examples of common industry terms for virtual resource partitioning are Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instances and Virtual Switch Instances (VSIs). The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The document contains these normative downward references. See RFC 3967 for additional information: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams: YANG Tree Diagrams (None - IETF stream) |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-01-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2018-01-16
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | (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? … (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 Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header. This document describes the Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs. (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 describes a YANG data model for Network Instances (NIs). The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs). VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs. Working Group Summary This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG. The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG. All comments have been addressed. The draft is ready for publication. Document Quality The draft went through initial reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good. A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?) Personnel Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alia Atlas 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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd. Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 draft (version-02) has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors. (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. N/A (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. Yes. Every author has confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes. The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR at every step of the process. There haven't been any concerns raised on the list. (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? The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. Comments and nits have been addressed in the version -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 (version-02) comments have been addressed. (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. (15) Are there downward normative 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. The state of other documents remains unchanged. (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). This draft registers a URI in the IETF XML registry and a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry. (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. N/A (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 draft (version-02) has been reviewed by YANG-Doctors, all the comments received have been properly addressed. |
2018-01-16
|
06 | Acee Lindem | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-06.txt |
2018-01-16
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-16
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Xufeng Liu , Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger |
2018-01-16
|
06 | Acee Lindem | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-16
|
05 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-02-08 |
2018-01-15
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | (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? … (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 Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header. This document describes the Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs. (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 describes a YANG data model for Network Instances (NIs). The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs). VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs. Working Group Summary This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG. The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG. All comments have been addressed. The draft is ready for publication. Document Quality The draft went through initial reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good. A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?) Personnel Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alia Atlas 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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd. Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 draft (version-02) has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors. (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. N/A (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. Yes. Every author has confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes. The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR at every step of the process. There haven't been any concerns raised on the list. (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? The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. There are still some editorial comments that need to be addressed. From idnits: idnits 2.15.00 /tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt: /tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(542): Line has weird spacing: '...address yang:...' /tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(630): Possible code comment in line: "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']". /tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(766): Possible code comment in line: /if:interfaces/if:interface/*/bind-network-instance-name: This leaf. /tmp/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt(808): Code start at 808: file "ietf-network-instance@2017-12-04.yang". |
2018-01-11
|
05 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | (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? … (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 Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header. This document describes the Network Instance (NI) YANG data module, and it supports the configuration of VRFs and VSIs. (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 describes a YANG data model for Network Instances (NIs). The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs). VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The YANG data module defined in this draft can be used to configure and manage VRFs and VSIs. Working Group Summary This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG. The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG. All major comments have been addressed. The draft is ready for publication. Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document. Document Quality The draft went through initial reviews by YANG-Doctors and the quality is good. A subset of the proposed model has been implemented. (are there any know implementations?) Personnel Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alia Atlas 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 draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd. Minor editorial comments are sent in a separate document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 draft (version-02) has been reviewed by Routing Directorate QA and YANG Doctors. (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. N/A (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. Yes. Every author has confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Yes. The authors have been asked (and they answered) on the WG list about IPR at every step of the process. There haven't been any concerns raised on the list. (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? The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. There are still some editorial comments that need to be addressed. From idnits: Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (September 26, 2017) is 41 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with ' ' and |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-12-21
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2017-12-04
|
05 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-05.txt |
2017-12-04
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-04
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Dean Bogdanovic , Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Lou Berger |
2017-12-04
|
05 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-29
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | Waiting for updated version with shepherd comments addressed |
2017-11-29
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2017-11-29
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2017-11-29
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-11-29
|
04 | Jeff Tantsura | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-11-07
|
04 | Yingzhen Qu | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-07
|
04 | Yingzhen Qu | Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> |
2017-11-07
|
04 | Yingzhen Qu | Document shepherd changed to Yingzhen Qu |
2017-09-27
|
04 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-04.txt |
2017-09-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-09-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Dean Bogdanovic , Christian Hopps , Acee Lindem , Lou Berger |
2017-09-27
|
04 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-18
|
03 | Zitao Wang | Added to session: IETF-99: netmod Wed-1330 |
2017-07-18
|
03 | Zitao Wang | Removed from session: IETF-99: netmod Wed-1330 |
2017-07-18
|
03 | Zitao Wang | Added to session: IETF-99: netmod Wed-1330 |
2017-07-18
|
03 | Zitao Wang | Removed from session: IETF-99: netmod Wed-1330 |
2017-07-16
|
03 | Zitao Wang | Added to session: IETF-99: netmod Wed-1330 |
2017-07-06
|
03 | Martin Vigoureux | Added to session: IETF-99: bess Thu-1550 |
2017-07-03
|
03 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-03.txt |
2017-07-03
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-03
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger , Acee Lindem |
2017-07-03
|
03 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-02
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: John Scudder. |
2017-04-26
|
02 | Martin Björklund | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Martin Bjorklund. |
2017-03-31
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Scudder |
2017-03-31
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Scudder |
2017-03-31
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2017-03-31
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Closed request for Early review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2017-03-24
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Added to session: IETF-98: rtgwg Wed-0900 |
2017-03-22
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-03-22
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2017-03-22
|
02 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Bjorklund |
2017-03-22
|
02 | Mehmet Ersue | Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Martin Bjorklund |
2017-03-21
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by GENART |
2017-03-21
|
02 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS |
2017-03-13
|
02 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-02.txt |
2017-03-13
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-13
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Dean Bogdanovic , Lou Berger , Acee Lindem |
2017-03-13
|
02 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-08
|
01 | Jeff Tantsura | Added to session: IETF-97: rtgwg Tue-0930 |
2016-10-28
|
01 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01.txt |
2016-10-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-28
|
00 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Christian Hopps" , "Acee Lindem" , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, "Lou Berger" , "Dean Bogdanovic" |
2016-10-28
|
00 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2016-06-25
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | This document now replaces draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-ni-model instead of None |
2016-06-25
|
00 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-00.txt |