Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-13

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the updates in the -12; they're some good improvements!
I think I am still looking for a little more clarity on one point, though it
can probably be addressed with an RFC-Editor note:

(1) the semantics of admin-group hex strings of length smaller than 11

In the -12 we now have:

  typedef admin-group {
    type yang:hex-string {
      /* 01:02:03:04 */
      length "1..11";
    }
    description
      "Administrative group/Resource class/Color representation in
      hex-string type.
      The Most Significant Byte (MSB) is the farthest to the
      left in the byte sequence.";

    reference "RFC3630 and RFC5305";
  }

This description still feels potentially ambiguous as to how to interpret
a byte sequence with fewer than four bytes -- does "MSB" mean "MSB of the
input string" or "MSB of the full-width value"?

I suggest adding  "Leading zero bytes in the configured value may be omitted for brevity."
(but anything with similar clarifying value would be fine).

[Ballot comment]
[comment section from -10 preserved unchanged, for convenience]

In general it's hard to examine many of these types and see whether they
are fit for purpose without some sense of how they would be used, but of
course following a chain of references for all of the types in question
wouldu be tedious to the point of exhaustion.  I'm reluctant to start
getting into examples (since such a list would necessarily be
incomplete), but if you want one, the 'suppression-interval' leaf has a
very terse description, that will presumably be supplemented by some
text in some other document about what exactly is getting suppressed and
when, but if I were to try to implement from just this document I'd be
doing a lot of guessing.

Section 3

  types for TE generic types and ietf-te-packet-types for packet
  specific types.  Other technology specific TE types are outside the

nits: "packet-specific" and "technology-specific" to hyphenate the
compound adjectives.

Section 3.1

  te-node-id:

      A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
      The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the
      dotted-quad notation.  This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router

Why is te-node-id IPv4-centric?  E.g., RFC 6119 describes an "IPv6 TE
Router ID" TLV as well as the "TE Router ID" TLV that we reference here
for the node ID.
Furthermore, either it's a 32-bit unsigned integer or it's represented
in the dotted-quad notation, but the dotted-quad notation doesn't really
count as a 32-bit unsigned integer.

  te-metric:

      A type representing the TE link metric as defined in [RFC3785].

(editorial) the phrase "link metric" does not appear in RFC 3785.

Section 3.2

  The ietf-te-packet-types module covers the common types and groupings
  specific packet technology.

nit: I think there's a word missing here.

  performance-metrics-attributes-packet:

      A YANG grouping for the augmentation of packet specific metrics to
      the generic performance metrics grouping parameters.

nit(?) I can't tell which way the augmentation is supposed to go, just
from this text.

Section 4

  typedef admin-group {
    type yang:hex-string {
      /* 01:02:03:04 */
      length "1..11";
    }
    description
      "Administrative group/Resource class/Color representation in
      hex-string type.";
    reference "RFC3630 and RFC5305";

RFC 5305 says to treat this as essentially a bitmask.  What are the
semantics when I only supply a string of (say) length 1 or 2?

  typedef performance-metrics-normality {
      [...]
    reference
      "RFC7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.
      RFC8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.
      RFC7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
      Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
      Extensions";

None of these three references describes "normal" or "abnormal".

  typedef te-bandwidth {
    type string {
      pattern
        '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
      + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
      + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+'
      + '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
      + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
      + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*';
    }

Can the document shepherd please report what validation has been done
for this pattern?

      For packet switching type, a float number is used, such as
      0x1p10.

What kind of units are implied for this (and the other types)?

  typedef te-metric {
    type uint32;
    description "TE link metric";
    reference "RFC3785";

[same comment about "link metric" and 3785]

  typedef te-node-id {
    type yang:dotted-quad;
    description
      "A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE
      topology.
      The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in
      the dotted-quad notation.

[same comment about uint32 vs. dotted-quad]

  typedef te-oper-status {
    [...]

Is there some way (a grouping?) to deduplicate the admin and operational
status enumerations?  They seem to be nearly identical in terms of the
range of possible values.

  identity se-style-desired {
    [...]

(et seq) The rtgdir's comments about whether 'base' should be present
seems relevant for these as well.

  identity oob-mapping-flag {
[....]
  identity entropy-label-capability {

Are all of the flags based on lsp-attributes-flags supposed to be
"desired" in the description (these aren't)?

  identity oam-mep-entity-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description "OAM MEP entities desired";

We probably should expand Maintenance Entity Group End Point (and MIP,
below).

  identity loopback-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description
      "This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is
      required to enter loopback mode.  This can also be

Is there a mismatch between "desired" and "required"?

  identity rtm-set-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description
      "Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag";

Is there a mismatch regarding "desired" in the identity name vs.
description?

  identity link-protection-type {
    description "Base identity for link protection type.";
  }
  identity link-protection-unprotected {
    base link-protection-type;

[I assume the WG had some good discussion about identities vs.
enumeration and don't want to second-guess that.]

  identity association-type-recovery {
    base association-type;
    description
      "Association Type Recovery used to association LSPs of
      same tunnel for recovery";

nit: the grammar seems weird, here; maybe a missing word?

  identity path-locally-computed {
    base path-computation-method;
    description
      "indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the
      path is computed by the local LER";
    reference "RFC3209";

In line with the gen-art reviewer's comments, a section ref might be
useful here.

  identity path-externally-queried {
    base path-computation-method;
    description
      [...]
      to the external source to aid computation); and the path that is
      returned by the external source is not required to provide a
      wholly resolved path back to the originating system - that is to
      say, some local computation may also be required";

nit: "provide a wholly resolved path back to the originating system"
could potentially be read ambiguously about whether "back to the
originating system refers to the path or where the (partial) result is
returned to.

  identity te-tunnel-type {
    [...]

There is no need for a mp2p or mp2mp tunnel type?

  identity tunnel-state-type {
    description
      "Base identity for TE tunnel states";

This is just "tunnel state" not "operational state"?

  identity lsp-state-type {
    description
      "Base identity for TE LSP states";

Is there a state machine for which transitions between states based on
this identity are allowed, or is it basically just a full mesh?

  identity path-invalidation-action-drop-tear {
    base path-invalidation-action-type;
    description
      "TE path invalidation action tear";

Is there a reference for this (or the other
path-invalidation-action-type)?  My naive reading wants to complete it
to "teardown" but I have low confidence that is correct.

  identity path-metric-optimize-includes {
    [...]
  identity path-metric-optimize-excludes {
    base path-metric-type;
    description
      "A metric that optimizes the number of excluded resources
      specified in a set";

optimizes to minimize or maximize it?

  grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth {
    [....]

What are the units on the bandwidth values herein?  bits per second?

      container threshold-accelerated-advertisement {
        description
          "When the difference between the last advertised value and
          current measured value exceed this threshold, anomalous
          announcement will be triggered.";
        uses performance-metrics-thresholds;

Are we reusing the performance-metrics-threshold container, which up
until now has been used for absolute measurements, to hold the
corresponding relative values (differences)?

  grouping optimization-metric-entry {
    [...]
    leaf weight {

Where is the sense of the 'weight' leaf defined?  That is, to larger
weight values get more traffic or less traffic?

    container path-srlgs-names {
        [...]
        leaf-list names {
          type string;
          description "List named SRLGs";

nit: missing "of"?

  grouping generic-path-disjointness {
    description "Path disjointness grouping";
    leaf disjointness {
      type te-path-disjointness;
      description
        "The type of resource disjointness.
        Under primary path, disjointness level applies to
        all secondary LSPs. Under secondary, disjointness
        level overrides the one under primary";

What does "under" mean?  It seems like it has something to do with the
position in the hierarchy where this grouping gets instantiated, which
is potentially subtle.

    container path-properties {
      config false;
      [...]
      container path-route-objects {
        description
          "Container for the list of route objects either returned by
          the computation engine or actually used by an LSP";
        list path-route-object {
          key index;
          ordered-by user;

(How do 'config false' and 'ordered-by user' interact?)

Section 5

  grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet {
    [...]
    uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes {
      augment performance-metrics-one-way {
        leaf one-way-min-delay {
        [...]
        leaf one-way-max-delay {

What kind of sanity or error checking is there for the nodes in this
model, e.g., if max delay is configured to be smaller than min delay?

        leaf one-way-delay-variation {
          type uint32 {
            range 0..16777215;
          }
          description "One-way delay variation in micro seconds.";

What does "variation" mean?  Deviation from mean?  Variance?  Mean
absolute error?

        leaf one-way-packet-loss {
          type decimal64 {
            fraction-digits 6;
            range "0 .. 50.331642";

Is there a reason for the oddly specific upper limit?
I also can't quite convince myself from the RFC 7950 grammar whether the
quotes on the range are valid and/or needed.

I also am unsure as to how useful the "normality" is for some of these,
like the packet loss and delay-variation values.

[same comments about two-way metrics as one-way metrics, I think.
Also the -packet variants.]

Section 7

We probably could say more here if we want, though I'm as-yet decided on
whether we should.
That is, things like editing  the config could cause traffic to be
disallowed, routed on suboptimal paths, routed through locations more
easily targeted for other purposes, etc., and reading config/status
could reveal information about network topology, which sites might be
most sensitive as targets for subsequent attacks, etc..  It's less clear
if there's much that would allow for identification of specific
users/customers or their traffic, though.  Maybe some of the DSCP stuff,
in some cases.

Section 10.2

A question for the responsible AD: do references that are used in
"reference" statements need to be normative references?  (E.g., RFC
3471.)

[Ballot comment]
I concur with Ben Kaduk and Mirja Kühlewind comments about the utility of additional context for the model.

Section 7.  Other models will import this one, and specific security considerations will have to be written for them.  Nevertheless, the general caution provided here could be a bit more specific perhaps on the order of:

-- Per “Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations”, doesn’t seem to adequately cover security/privacy issues such as misrouting of traffic for eavesdropping/inspection, circumventing existing defenses, modification or replay; and business operation issues such as increased transit bills due to inappropriate/malicious configuration.

-- Per “The access to such data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments” doesn’t explain the rationale such as that revealing detailed information about network configuration could exploited in future attacks.

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting NoObjection, but I do strongly support Benjamin's comment -- it's really very hard to understand how this will be used / understand the meaning of many of the types.

I do understand that much of this is because this is largely because of the nature of the document, but I think that the document would benefit from a large disclaimer / description explaining that this isn't something that can just be read and implemented from, and that it is instead a collection...

[Ballot discuss]
There's a couple points (describe further in the comment section) that
I'd like to get a bit more clarity on:

(1) the semantics of admin-group hex strings of length smaller than 11

(2) the units for the te-bandwidth numerical values (and in what cases
no units are needed), and for performance-metrics-*-way-bandwidth values

(3) whether threshold-accelerated-advertisement's use of relative vs.
absolute values requires any special handling

(4) whether we want to specify any requirements/error-handling/etc. when
there is potential for "nonsense" configuration, such as a
max-constraint being configured as numerically smaller than a
min-constraint

(5) what the "variation" in the te-packet-types module's leafs is
intending to measure.

[Ballot comment]
In general it's hard to examine many of these types and see whether they
are fit for purpose without some sense of how they would be used, but of
course following a chain of references for all of the types in question
wouldu be tedious to the point of exhaustion.  I'm reluctant to start
getting into examples (since such a list would necessarily be
incomplete), but if you want one, the 'suppression-interval' leaf has a
very terse description, that will presumably be supplemented by some
text in some other document about what exactly is getting suppressed and
when, but if I were to try to implement from just this document I'd be
doing a lot of guessing.

Section 3

  types for TE generic types and ietf-te-packet-types for packet
  specific types.  Other technology specific TE types are outside the

nits: "packet-specific" and "technology-specific" to hyphenate the
compound adjectives.

Section 3.1

  te-node-id:

      A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
      The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the
      dotted-quad notation.  This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router

Why is te-node-id IPv4-centric?  E.g., RFC 6119 describes an "IPv6 TE
Router ID" TLV as well as the "TE Router ID" TLV that we reference here
for the node ID.
Furthermore, either it's a 32-bit unsigned integer or it's represented
in the dotted-quad notation, but the dotted-quad notation doesn't really
count as a 32-bit unsigned integer.

  te-metric:

      A type representing the TE link metric as defined in [RFC3785].

(editorial) the phrase "link metric" does not appear in RFC 3785.

Section 3.2

  The ietf-te-packet-types module covers the common types and groupings
  specific packet technology.

nit: I think there's a word missing here.

  performance-metrics-attributes-packet:

      A YANG grouping for the augmentation of packet specific metrics to
      the generic performance metrics grouping parameters.

nit(?) I can't tell which way the augmentation is supposed to go, just
from this text.

Section 4

  typedef admin-group {
    type yang:hex-string {
      /* 01:02:03:04 */
      length "1..11";
    }
    description
      "Administrative group/Resource class/Color representation in
      hex-string type.";
    reference "RFC3630 and RFC5305";

RFC 5305 says to treat this as essentially a bitmask.  What are the
semantics when I only supply a string of (say) length 1 or 2?

  typedef performance-metrics-normality {
      [...]
    reference
      "RFC7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.
      RFC8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions.
      RFC7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
      Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
      Extensions";

None of these three references describes "normal" or "abnormal".

  typedef te-bandwidth {
    type string {
      pattern
        '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
      + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
      + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+'
      + '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
      + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
      + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*';
    }

Can the document shepherd please report what validation has been done
for this pattern?

      For packet switching type, a float number is used, such as
      0x1p10.

What kind of units are implied for this (and the other types)?

  typedef te-metric {
    type uint32;
    description "TE link metric";
    reference "RFC3785";

[same comment about "link metric" and 3785]

  typedef te-node-id {
    type yang:dotted-quad;
    description
      "A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE
      topology.
      The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in
      the dotted-quad notation.

[same comment about uint32 vs. dotted-quad]

  typedef te-oper-status {
    [...]

Is there some way (a grouping?) to deduplicate the admin and operational
status enumerations?  They seem to be nearly identical in terms of the
range of possible values.

  identity se-style-desired {
    [...]

(et seq) The rtgdir's comments about whether 'base' should be present
seems relevant for these as well.

  identity oob-mapping-flag {
[....]
  identity entropy-label-capability {

Are all of the flags based on lsp-attributes-flags supposed to be
"desired" in the description (these aren't)?

  identity oam-mep-entity-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description "OAM MEP entities desired";

We probably should expand Maintenance Entity Group End Point (and MIP,
below).

  identity loopback-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description
      "This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is
      required to enter loopback mode.  This can also be

Is there a mismatch between "desired" and "required"?

  identity rtm-set-desired {
    base lsp-attributes-flags;
    description
      "Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag";

Is there a mismatch regarding "desired" in the identity name vs.
description?

  identity link-protection-type {
    description "Base identity for link protection type.";
  }
  identity link-protection-unprotected {
    base link-protection-type;

[I assume the WG had some good discussion about identities vs.
enumeration and don't want to second-guess that.]

  identity association-type-recovery {
    base association-type;
    description
      "Association Type Recovery used to association LSPs of
      same tunnel for recovery";

nit: the grammar seems weird, here; maybe a missing word?

  identity path-locally-computed {
    base path-computation-method;
    description
      "indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the
      path is computed by the local LER";
    reference "RFC3209";

In line with the gen-art reviewer's comments, a section ref might be
useful here.

  identity path-externally-queried {
    base path-computation-method;
    description
      [...]
      to the external source to aid computation); and the path that is
      returned by the external source is not required to provide a
      wholly resolved path back to the originating system - that is to
      say, some local computation may also be required";

nit: "provide a wholly resolved path back to the originating system"
could potentially be read ambiguously about whether "back to the
originating system refers to the path or where the (partial) result is
returned to.

  identity te-tunnel-type {
    [...]

There is no need for a mp2p or mp2mp tunnel type?

  identity tunnel-state-type {
    description
      "Base identity for TE tunnel states";

This is just "tunnel state" not "operational state"?

  identity lsp-state-type {
    description
      "Base identity for TE LSP states";

Is there a state machine for which transitions between states based on
this identity are allowed, or is it basically just a full mesh?

  identity path-invalidation-action-drop-tear {
    base path-invalidation-action-type;
    description
      "TE path invalidation action tear";

Is there a reference for this (or the other
path-invalidation-action-type)?  My naive reading wants to complete it
to "teardown" but I have low confidence that is correct.

  identity path-metric-optimize-includes {
    [...]
  identity path-metric-optimize-excludes {
    base path-metric-type;
    description
      "A metric that optimizes the number of excluded resources
      specified in a set";

optimizes to minimize or maximize it?

  grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth {
    [....]

What are the units on the bandwidth values herein?  bits per second?

      container threshold-accelerated-advertisement {
        description
          "When the difference between the last advertised value and
          current measured value exceed this threshold, anomalous
          announcement will be triggered.";
        uses performance-metrics-thresholds;

Are we reusing the performance-metrics-threshold container, which up
until now has been used for absolute measurements, to hold the
corresponding relative values (differences)?

  grouping optimization-metric-entry {
    [...]
    leaf weight {

Where is the sense of the 'weight' leaf defined?  That is, to larger
weight values get more traffic or less traffic?

    container path-srlgs-names {
        [...]
        leaf-list names {
          type string;
          description "List named SRLGs";

nit: missing "of"?

  grouping generic-path-disjointness {
    description "Path disjointness grouping";
    leaf disjointness {
      type te-path-disjointness;
      description
        "The type of resource disjointness.
        Under primary path, disjointness level applies to
        all secondary LSPs. Under secondary, disjointness
        level overrides the one under primary";

What does "under" mean?  It seems like it has something to do with the
position in the hierarchy where this grouping gets instantiated, which
is potentially subtle.

    container path-properties {
      config false;
      [...]
      container path-route-objects {
        description
          "Container for the list of route objects either returned by
          the computation engine or actually used by an LSP";
        list path-route-object {
          key index;
          ordered-by user;

(How do 'config false' and 'ordered-by user' interact?)

Section 5

  grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet {
    [...]
    uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes {
      augment performance-metrics-one-way {
        leaf one-way-min-delay {
        [...]
        leaf one-way-max-delay {

What kind of sanity or error checking is there for the nodes in this
model, e.g., if max delay is configured to be smaller than min delay?

        leaf one-way-delay-variation {
          type uint32 {
            range 0..16777215;
          }
          description "One-way delay variation in micro seconds.";

What does "variation" mean?  Deviation from mean?  Variance?  Mean
absolute error?

        leaf one-way-packet-loss {
          type decimal64 {
            fraction-digits 6;
            range "0 .. 50.331642";

Is there a reason for the oddly specific upper limit?
I also can't quite convince myself from the RFC 7950 grammar whether the
quotes on the range are valid and/or needed.

I also am unsure as to how useful the "normality" is for some of these,
like the packet loss and delay-variation values.

[same comments about two-way metrics as one-way metrics, I think.
Also the -packet variants.]

Section 7

We probably could say more here if we want, though I'm as-yet decided on
whether we should.
That is, things like editing  the config could cause traffic to be
disallowed, routed on suboptimal paths, routed through locations more
easily targeted for other purposes, etc., and reading config/status
could reveal information about network topology, which sites might be
most sensitive as targets for subsequent attacks, etc..  It's less clear
if there's much that would allow for identification of specific
users/customers or their traffic, though.  Maybe some of the DSCP stuff,
in some cases.

Section 10.2

A question for the responsible AD: do references that are used in
"reference" statements need to be normative references?  (E.g., RFC
3471.)

[Ballot comment]
Maybe it's just me but I think for this yang model I would have appreciated a little bit more intro text given some more context on how and when these models and types are used.

Especially I would have appreciated more context what normality means and is used for. Not sure I fully understand normality. Can you maybe briefly explain what it is used for?

Also one more concrete comment on available-bandwidth and utilized-bandwidth (e.g. p. 47): you say that this is the measured bandwidth and later on you give an interval config value as well. However, I think it would be good to be more concrete. I believe you have in mind the _average_ value over the measurement interval, right? If so, maybe write it down like this in the description. Is there maybe a reference you can provide? Or maybe you can even point at some IPPM documents...?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09. 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 two 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/

two, new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-te-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-te-packet-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. 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/

two, new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-te-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Prefix: ietf-te-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-te-packet-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Prefix: ietf-te-packet-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, Lou Berger , draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Traffic
Engineering Common YANG Types'
  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 2019-05-16. 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 collection of common data types and groupings
  in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic
  Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/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)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document defines a YANG module.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> (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.


  This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
  in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic
  Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.


> 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?

This document was split from the draft-ietf-teas-yang-te to faciliate
document references and interdependencies that are not linked to TE
Tunnels and Interfaces, e.g., draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.  There is
strong interest in this document and seeing it progress.

> 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?

The YANG module document is critical to other TE YANG modules.  Multiple
vendors have stated that they are implementing the dependent modules.
This draft has gone through a YANG Doctor review.

> Personnel

>  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard

> (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.

I have reviewed this work as it progressed, from the start of when it
was adopted until the recent WG Last call. I believe it 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.

Yes, the document should and has been reviewed by the YANG doctor
team.  The review comments were addressed in the current version of the
draft.

> (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 issues.

> (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. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/EIksux939vJ_1l8486PYwoFocqs


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

No.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

I think it represent strong consensus among thos in the WG interested in
and working on 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.

None.

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

An early YANG doctor review was requested and the document was updated
based on the received comments.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

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.

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).

The IANA section was fully reviewed and contains the information
typically included for a new YANG module.

> (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.

Node.

> (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 validation was reviewed and is available at:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/
Idnits from the tools page was check, see:
      https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt
     

> 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)?

Proposed Standard

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

The document defines a YANG module.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> (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.


  This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
  in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types and
  groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic
  Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.


> 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?

This document was split from the draft-ietf-teas-yang-te to faciliate
document references and interdependencies that are not linked to TE
Tunnels and Interfaces, e.g., draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo.  There is
strong interest in this document and seeing it progress.

> 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?

The YANG module document is critical to other TE YANG modules.  Multiple
vendors have stated that they are implementing the dependent modules.
This draft has gone through a YANG Doctor review.

> Personnel

>  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard

> (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.

I have reviewed this work as it progressed, from the start of when it
was adopted until the recent WG Last call. I believe it 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.

Yes, the document should and has been reviewed by the YANG doctor
team.  The review comments were addressed in the current version of the
draft.

> (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 issues.

> (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. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/EIksux939vJ_1l8486PYwoFocqs


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

No.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

I think it represent strong consensus among thos in the WG interested in
and working on 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.

None.

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

An early YANG doctor review was requested and the document was updated
based on the received comments.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

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.

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).

The IANA section was fully reviewed and contains the information
typically included for a new YANG module.

> (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.

Node.

> (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 validation was reviewed and is available at:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/
Idnits from the tools page was check, see:
      https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-06.txt
     

Pre LC IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/EIksux939vJ_1l8486PYwoFocqs
All responses received
Igor Bryskin
Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
Tarek Saad (tsaad)
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Xufeng Liu
Leeyoung
Shah, Himanshu
Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rakesh Gandhi , Xufeng Liu , Vishnu Beeram , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Igor Bryskin , Himanshu Shah , Young Lee , Tarek Saad