Time Capability in NETCONF
draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-02-01
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-01-26
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2015-12-14
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-11-23
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-11-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-11-20
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-11-20
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-11-19
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-11-16
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-11-10
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-11-10
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-11-10
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] No longer see a reason to hold this up for the discussion which went fine with respect to the registry policy change. |
2015-11-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-10-14
|
09 | Tal Mizrahi | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-10-14
|
09 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-09.txt |
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from dew@tx.technion.ac.il, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.ad@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability@ietf.org, moses@ee.technion.ac.il to (None) |
2015-10-12
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot discuss] Placeholder discuss for draft discussion. |
2015-10-12
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2015-10-12
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry is Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does not meet the requirement … [Ballot comment] The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry is Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does not meet the requirement that the registration come from a Standards Track RFC. This document cannot make that registration. After discussion about whether the IESG should make an exception in this case and allow the registration, I agree that it's the right thing to do for this document, so I've cleared my DISCUSS ballot on that point. But at the same time, it seems that the registration policy is too strict, and should be IETF Review, which allows the NETCONF working group to make the decision by getting IETF consensus on the registration -- there's no need to specifically require a Standards Track RFC. To that end, I've submitted an Internet draft, draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update, which I ask the Network Operations AD to sponsor, in coordination with the NETCONF working group. |
2015-10-12
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] I share Barry's concern and am also interested in the experimental aspects. How would netconf evaluate the experiment? I did find the draft … [Ballot comment] I share Barry's concern and am also interested in the experimental aspects. How would netconf evaluate the experiment? I did find the draft well written and addressing a good set of problems. |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] 3.7 could really do with an example and is underspecified (where does it say what the digits represent?) |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] - There was not sufficient support to adopt draft-mm-netconf-time-capability in NETCONF. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see some feedback on this draft during the … [Ballot comment] - There was not sufficient support to adopt draft-mm-netconf-time-capability in NETCONF. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see some feedback on this draft during the IETF LC It seems that Joel and I missed Barry's point (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-netconf-time-capability/ballot/#barry-leiba) though. - "Typical synchronization protocols, such as the Network Time Protocol ([NTP], [RFC5907]) provide the means to verify that a clock is synchronized to a time reference by querying its Management Information Base (MIB)." Provide a reference to the YANG model as well: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7317 | +--rw ntp! | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw server* [name] | +--rw name string | +--rw (transport) | | +--:(udp) | | +--rw udp | | +--rw address inet:host | | +--rw port? inet:port-number | +--rw association-type? enumeration | +--rw iburst? boolean | +--rw prefer? boolean |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] FWIW, I support Barry's DISCUSS and (as Ben) would like to see something about the experiment expectations. |
2015-09-17
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] It would be helpful to see a few words about the nature of the experiment, even if that is just something to the … [Ballot comment] It would be helpful to see a few words about the nature of the experiment, even if that is just something to the effect of "get deployment experience to decide if this is really a good idea". Or more to the point, is there an expectation that we will learn something from this, and perhaps consider it for standards track in the future? |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to dew@tx.technion.ac.il, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.ad@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability@ietf.org, moses@ee.technion.ac.il from dew@tx.technion.ac.il, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.ad@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability@ietf.org, moses@ee.technion.ac.il |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] This really seems to derail this document entirely: -- Section 7 -- This document proposes to register the following capability identifier … [Ballot discuss] This really seems to derail this document entirely: -- Section 7 -- This document proposes to register the following capability identifier URN in the 'Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs' registry But, as the document shepherd points out, the registration policy for that registry is Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does not meet that requirement. This document cannot make that registration. One way around this is to have a separate, Standards Track document that only makes the registration. Another way around this is to make a separate, Standards Track document that changes the registry's registration policy to IETF Review. The first workaround seems a little silly. Perhaps the second is the better path. If the second path is NOT desired, then perhaps we have a more basic problem here that needs more discussion. |
2015-09-16
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-09-15
|
08 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-09-11
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-09-11
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-09-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-09-07
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2015-09-07
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot has been issued |
2015-09-07
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-09-07
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-09-07
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-01
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-09-01
|
08 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-08.txt |
2015-08-31
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-08-31
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | 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 … 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? draft-mm-netconf-time-capability seeks experimental status. One complicating factor, which required considerations is the standards action required for allocation of resources from the netconf capabilities registration. (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 defines a capability-based extension to the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) that allows time-triggered configuration and management operations. This extension allows NETCONF clients to invoke configuration updates according to scheduled times, and allows NETCONF servers to attach timestamps to the data they send to NETCONF clients. Working Group Summary The document was proposed for consideration as a netconf working-group item. ultimately it was not adopted as such. with the blessing of the the ADs it was forwarded to the ISE however, the requirements for allocation for the netconf registry required standards action. The decision was made to AD sponsor the draft recognizing that a number of participants in the discussion felt that the proposed capabilities had merit even the to proposal itself wasn't ready for the standards track. This required a standards action, 4 week last call and a number of solicited reviews in order to insure that we were not wildly off base. Document Quality There were some significant variance of opinion on which 6142 operations are valid for timing. one vantage point is that potentially you only care about timing get operations. Another more common view is that with the exception of a few which make no sense timing is applicable to most of the operations. the proposed set hews to the later vantange point. it is possible that experimentation will refine the use cases more succintly. Personnel Joel Jaeggli is the sponsoring AD and Shepherd. (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. It's my view that this document is ready for publication the updated draft 07 addresses comments made during IETF last call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No serious concerns remain. It is my belief that if this facilty proves useful that the netfconf working group will revisit the subject at an appropriate time. (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. NETCONF specific review was obtained on this document. (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 interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No special considerations beyond those described in the current document announcement remain. (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. Authors have confirmed that no IPR disclosures are required. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus at last call was judged to be favorable. Tehre was concern expressed by some working group participants that the WG had declined to take on this work and that the standards track was therefore not appropriate, it was not proposed after the WG discussion as a standards track document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No appeals seem likely. (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 interested community 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 to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. |
2015-08-23
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-17 |
2015-08-16
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-08-16
|
07 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-07.txt |
2015-08-03
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Al Morton. |
2015-08-01
|
06 | Tal Mizrahi | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-08-01
|
06 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-06.txt |
2015-07-29
|
05 | Ólafur Guðmundsson | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ólafur Guðmundsson. |
2015-07-29
|
05 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-07-29
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-07-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-07-28
|
05 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/netconf-capability-urns/ a new URN will be registered as follows: Capability: time Capability Identifier: urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:time:1.0 Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the namespaces sub-namespace of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ the following namespace will be registered: ID: yang:ietf-netconf-time URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-time Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] NOTE: Expert review has been completed, and this assignment has been approved upon approval for publication. Third, in the YANG Module Names registry under the YANG Parameters heading at https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ a new module name will be registered as follows: Name: ietf-netconf-time Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-time Prefix: nct Module: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones 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 what actions will be performed. |
2015-07-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-07-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-07-02
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2015-07-02
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2015-06-30
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
2015-06-30
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton |
2015-06-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-06-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Time Capability in NETCONF) to Experimental … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Time Capability in NETCONF) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Time Capability in NETCONF' as Experimental RFC 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 2015-07-29. 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 capability-based extension to the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) that allows time-triggered configuration and management operations. This extension allows NETCONF clients to invoke configuration updates according to scheduled times, and allows NETCONF servers to attach timestamps to the data they send to NETCONF clients. The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry requires a standards action in order to populate the registry. This document was taken out of the ISE stream and brought forward as an AD sponsored individual-submission to address this consideration. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-netconf-time-capability/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mm-netconf-time-capability/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-06-29
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call was requested |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-06-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-06-24
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Notification list changed to dew@tx.technion.ac.il, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability.ad@ietf.org, draft-mm-netconf-time-capability@ietf.org, moses@ee.technion.ac.il |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Stream changed to IETF from None |
2015-06-18
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | Shepherding AD changed to Joel Jaeggli |
2015-05-07
|
05 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-05.txt |
2015-04-15
|
04 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-04.txt |
2014-12-15
|
03 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-03.txt |
2014-06-25
|
02 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-02.txt |
2014-01-02
|
01 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-01.txt |
2013-07-08
|
00 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-00.txt |