Extensions to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) YANG Model
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extensions to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) YANG Model' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-17.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extensions to the Access Control Lists (ACLs) YANG Model'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-17.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Modeling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   RFC 8519 defines a YANG data model for Access Control Lists (ACLs).
   This document discusses a set of extensions that fix many of the
   limitations of the ACL model as initially defined in RFC 8519.

   The document also defines IANA-maintained modules for ICMP types and
   IPv6 extension headers.

Working Group Summary

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

It was recognized early on that RFC 8519 was not complete and
that it would need extensions to support the existing deployment of
ACL solutions in the field, especially 'defined-sets'. In that
sense, it fills an import gap. However, as Shepherd notes, 
the document represents a strong concurrence of a 
few individuals -- mainly authors.

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?

As the Shepherd indicates, there are no known implementations 
of this YANG module.


Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Lou Berger. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

RFC Editor Note