A YANG Data Model for Tunnel Interface Types
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-07

[Ballot comment]
I have a hard time seeing the need for a generic UDP tunnel type (8) and also specific instances of UDP tunneling such as Teredo (14). I think it is better to go one way or another but not do both to avoid any confusion. In any case I think RFC8085 *should not* be the sole reference for UDP tunneling as it does not specify UDP tunneling but provides guidelines for designers of UDP based tunneling mechanisms.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Tom Petch that adding "tunnelType Registry" or "tunnelType 
Definitions" more prominently on the IANA website is advisable.

On a more general note, it's pretty weird to me to go and create a
registry with a fairly long list of initial population but then claim
that it is not intended to be complete and should be supplemented by
additional registrations for existing protocols.  Either it should be
complete, or we can just have a small sample of initial registrations to
"get a feel" for what they look like and what needs to be included.
Then, most registrations would be done as standalone registrations and
it would not feel like the outliers were getting rejected.

Appendix A

The example module's namespace was not changed to reflect the move away
from ietf-*.

[Ballot comment]
Process note:  I'm assuming that draft-boucadair-netmod-softwire-iftunnel is the original version of this draft.  I couldn't find a clear e-mail thread about it.  If it is, please indicate it in the "Replaces" field.

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

I am a bit puzzled because the Abstract recognizes that the document is built onto an incomplete data-set and that makes me wonder whether the model will be usable until the data-set is completed.

Also, I really do not understand the update you propose to the registry. It seems that you point to the technology spec rather than to the original mib module definition, but I quickly looked and none of the specs I parsed define the mib entry/value, so getting rid of the existing reference appears to me as a clear loss of information. I think you should keep the original reference and add a new one if needed, but not simply replace.

And if you have undertaken this effort of tidying the registry, why not complete it with the missing values?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

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:iana-tunnel-type
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tunnel-type
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. That expert review has already been initiated. The xml related registration has been reviewed by the expert.  The tunnel-type registration is still under review.  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: iana-tunnel-type
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tunnel-type
Prefix: iana-tunnel-type
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

In the notes column of this registry, IANA will make the following entry:

Tunnel type values must not be directly added to the iana-tunnel-type YANG module. They must instead be respectively added to the "tunnelType" sub-registry (under the "ifType definitions" registry).

Third, in the Internet-standard MIB mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType registry on the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

the existing registrations:

Decimal Name Description References
2 direct no intermediate header [RFC4087]
3 gre GRE encapsulation [RFC4087]
4 minimal Minimal encapsulation [RFC4087]
5 l2tp L2TP encapsulation [RFC4087]
6 pptp PPTP encapsulation [RFC4087]
7 l2f L2F encapsulation [RFC4087]
8 udp UDP encapsulation [RFC4087]
9 atmp ATMP encapsulation [RFC4087]
10 msdp MSDP encapsulation [RFC4087]
11 sixToFour 6to4 encapsulation [RFC4087]
12 sixOverFour 6over4 encapsulation [RFC4087]
13 isatap ISATAP encapsulation [RFC4087]
14 teredo Teredo encapsulation [RFC4087]
16 softwireMesh softwire mesh tunnel [RFC7856]
17 dsLite DS-Lite tunnel [RFC7870]

will be changed to:

Decimal Name Description References
2 direct no intermediate header [RFC2003][RFC4213]
3 gre GRE encapsulation [RFC1701][RFC1702][RFC7676]
4 minimal Minimal encapsulation [RFC2004]
5 l2tp L2TP encapsulation [RFC2661]
6 pptp PPTP encapsulation [RFC2637]
7 l2f L2F encapsulation [RFC2341]
8 udp UDP encapsulation [RFC8085]
9 atmp ATMP encapsulation [RFC2107]
10 msdp MSDP encapsulation [RFC3618]
11 sixToFour 6to4 encapsulation [RFC3056]
12 sixOverFour 6over4 encapsulation [RFC2529]
13 isatap ISATAP encapsulation [RFC5214]
14 teredo Teredo encapsulation [RFC4380]
16 softwireMesh softwire mesh tunnel [RFC5565]
17 dsLite DS-Lite tunnel [RFC6333]

In this registry, the following note will be added:

When this registry is modified, the YANG module iana-tunnel-type must be updated as defined in [ RFC-to-be ].

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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
IANA Services

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: softwire-chairs@ietf.org, Yong Cui , cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, softwires@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Tunnel Interface Types YANG Module) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider
the following document: - 'Tunnel Interface Types YANG Module'
  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 2019-05-07. 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 specifies a YANG module containing a collection of IANA
  maintained YANG identities, used as interface types for tunnel
  interfaces.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel/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?

Proposed Standard, which is indicated in the title page header.
This document specifies a YANG module containing a collection of
IANA maintained YANG identities.


(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 specifies a YANG module containing a collection of IANA
  maintained YANG identities, used as interface types for tunnel
  interfaces.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

During the publication process and IANA review of draft-ietf-
softwire-yang (which has been approved by IESG recently), IANA
requested that the YANG module for the [iana-iftunnel registry
was put into a separate document from softwire-yang.
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunne was published containing just
the module.

There’s no controversy in softwire wg on this doc.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there’s no implementations of this doc, but some
vendors will implement it to support softwire-yang and some
functions.
This was a part of softwire-yang, which has been thoroughly
reviewed.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yong Cui is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson or Éric Vyncke will be 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.
This version of 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?

No.


(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.

No.

(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.

(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.

(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 disclosures have been submitted directly on this doc.

(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 WG consensus on softwire-yang is solid, and the iana-iftunnel
registry was requested to put into this doc from softwire-yang.

(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.

No.
Only an outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-15. Should be fixed at RFC Editor.

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

The YANG module that is contained in this draft has been through
the YANG doctors review process when it was part of
draft-ietf-softwire-yang (actually the module was created as
part of the YANG doctor’s review, introduced in
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-07).  Martin Björklund was the YANG
doctor reviewer for this.

Given that the model is just wrapping an IANA registry in YANG,
I don’t think there’s any need for a specific YANG doctor’s
review again.

(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 references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

draft-ietf-softwire-yang-16 in RFC Ed Queue refers
this doc as a Normative Reference.

(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.

(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).

Confirm.

(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.

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tunnel-type
iana-tunnel-type

(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 warnings or errors when passing the online YANG validator.

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, which is indicated in the title page header.
This document specifies a YANG module containing a collection of
IANA maintained YANG identities.


(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 specifies a YANG module containing a collection of IANA
  maintained YANG identities, used as interface types for tunnel
  interfaces.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

During the publication process and IANA review of draft-ietf-
softwire-yang (which has been approved by IESG recently), IANA
requested that the YANG module for the [iana-iftunnel registry
was put into a separate document from softwire-yang.
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunne was published containing just
the module.

There’s no controversy in softwire wg on this doc.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there’s no implementations of this doc, but some
vendors will implement it to support softwire-yang and some
functions.
This was a part of softwire-yang, which has been thoroughly
reviewed.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yong Cui is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson or Éric Vyncke will be 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.
This version of 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?

No.


(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.

No.

(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.

(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.

(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 disclosures have been submitted directly on this doc.

(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 WG consensus on softwire-yang is solid, and the iana-iftunnel
registry was requested to put into this doc from softwire-yang.

(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.

No.
Only an outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-15. Should be fixed at RFC Editor.

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

The YANG module that is contained in this draft has been through
the YANG doctors review process when it was part of
draft-ietf-softwire-yang (actually the module was created as
part of the YANG doctor’s review, introduced in
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-07).  Martin Björklund was the YANG
doctor reviewer for this.

Given that the model is just wrapping an IANA registry in YANG,
I don’t think there’s any need for a specific YANG doctor’s
review again.

(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 references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

draft-ietf-softwire-yang-16 in RFC Ed Queue refers
this doc as a Normative Reference.

(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.

(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).

Confirm.

(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.

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tunnel-type
iana-tunnel-type

(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 warnings or errors when passing the online YANG validator.

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, which is indicated in the title page header.
This document specifies a YANG module containing a collection of
IANA maintained YANG identities.


(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 specifies a YANG module containing a collection of IANA
  maintained YANG identities, used as interface types for tunnel
  interfaces.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

During the publication process and IANA review of draft-ietf-
softwire-yang, which has been proved by IESG recently, a YANG
module for the iana-iftunnel registry was requested to put
into a separate document from softwire-yang.
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel was published containing just
the module.

There’s no controversy in softwire wg on this doc.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Currently there’s no implementations of this doc, but some
vendors will implement it to support softwire-yang and some
functions.
This was a part of softwire-yang, which has been thoroughly
reviewed.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Yong Cui is the Document Shepherd.
Terry Manderson or Éric Vyncke will be 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.
This version of 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?

No.


(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.

No.

(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.

(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.

(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 disclosures have been submitted directly on this doc.

(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 WG consensus on softwire-yang is solid, and the iana-iftunnel
registry was requested to put into this doc from softwire-yang.

(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.

No.
Only an outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-15. Should be fixed at RFC Editor.

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



(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 references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

draft-ietf-softwire-yang-16 in RFC Ed Queue refers
this doc as a Normative Reference.

(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.

(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).

Confirm.

(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.

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tunnel-type
iana-tunnel-type

(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.

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?

(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

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who 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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

(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? 

(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.)

(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.

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

(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?

(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.


(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).

(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.

(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.