[i2rs] FW: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 - need revision -05 and IPR statements.
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 11 November 2016 19:49 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B10E12946C for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:49:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d82ukl6OmqKL for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F800129C8A for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:49:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.148.72;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: i2rs@ietf.org
References: <00f801d23c40$32c17b40$984471c0$@ndzh.com> <013e01d23c4a$ec198e70$c44cab50$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <013e01d23c4a$ec198e70$c44cab50$@ndzh.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:46:47 -0500
Message-ID: <018101d23c54$58220670$08661350$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0182_01D23C2A.6F510780"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHMCaKraCeQhzO6OYLuTiRFfI875QGojmd7oNNQerA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/nX5544ufG7qzoE0DJqrCmuV4wok>
Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, 'Alia Atlas' <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: [i2rs] FW: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 - need revision -05 and IPR statements.
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:49:17 -0000
Attached is the Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04.txt. I forgot to copy the messages to the working group. Authors: I apologize for the delay in getting this shepherd report done. It should have come during WG LC. Sue From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 1:39 PM To: ludwig@clemm.org; jmedved@cisco.com Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Alia Atlas' Subject: RE: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 - need revision -05 and IPR statements. Alex and Jan: I suggest you add a section on interaction with other yang modules. I've given you some ideas on how to comment in the text. This type of text seem to smooth the path of other yang modules going through the IESG. Sue Hares --------------- Interaction with other Yang models: This document references the following IETF standard models: ietf-yang-types [rfc6991], ietf-inet-types [RFC6991]. It relies on the i2RS topology models: ietf-network and ietf-network-topology (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-06. This is a protocol independent yang model with topology information by design it does not link to the following configuration models; 2) ietf-interfaces model [RFC7223] 3) ietf-routing yang model [RFC8022] 4) OSPF configuration yang module ( ietf-ospf or the ospf bfd) [draft-ietf-ospf-yang] 5) ISIS configuration yang module (idraft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg) 6) I2RS RIB (ephemeral state RIB) or configuration extended RIB ( draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend) It does important OSPF, ISIS, and statically configured topology information into the model without linking to these models. Why this is useful in ephemeral state: The approach to not link to any configuration model but to let topology process load information from OSPF into the data model means that there is no model link between configuration state and topology. The assumption is the routing process uploading the topology model knows how to do this. The NETCONF or RESTCONF processes simply reads, reports notifications, and logs the data. Writes from ephemeral state to the data models: These data models allow the NETCCONF/RESTCONF process to write a logical topology link. Exactly how this write operates depends on the routing process. This model obeys the requirements for the ephemeral state found in the document draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state. Sue From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:23 PM To: ludwig@clemm.org; jmedved@cisco.com Cc: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Alia Atlas' Subject: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 - need revision -05 and IPR statements. Alex: I apologize that it has taken me so long to do my shepherding checks. Here's the fixes that need to 1) You need to add RFC2119 - to your reference as normative 2) Add new yang RFC to reference in first line of introduction (see below) 3) Change your OSPF reference [Use RFC2328] 4) You need to add an IANA section - See my suggested text below 5) Do you need pre-2008 IPR language? 6) Be aware we will get push back on the number of authors. Are there any authors that did not actively work on the yang or document? Sue #1 - Add the following text to The Terminology section (see RFC8022) for another example The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> ]. #2 Change to Add New Yang reference Old/ This document introduces a YANG [RFC7950 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950> ] [RFC6991 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6991> ] data model for Layer 3 network topologies, specifically Layer 3 Unicast/ New/ This document introduces a YANG [RFC7950 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950> ] [RFC7223] [RFC6991 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6991> ] data model for Layer 3 network topologies, specifically Layer 3 Unicast #3 change your OSPF reference to RFC2338 115 different Layer 3 Unicast topology types. For this purpose, example 116 models are introduced that cover IS-IS [RFC1195] and OSPF [RFC2178]. 1312 [RFC2178] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2178, July 1997. #4 - Add IANA Considerations as follows <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8022#section-10> 10. IANA Considerations This document registers the following namespace URIs in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3688> ]: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis-topology Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. URI: namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ospf-topology"; Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. URI: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3-unicast-topology"; Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. This document registers the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020> ]: Name: ietf-l3-unicast-topology Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis-topology Prefix: l3t Reference: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 (RFC form) Name: ietf-ospf-topology Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing Prefix: ospft Reference: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 (RFC form) #5 - do you really need this pre-2008 information - I do not think it is relevant 63 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 64 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 65 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 66 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 67 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 68 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 69 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 70 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 71 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 72 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 73 than English.