Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28

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-rfc8407bis@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, maqiufang1@huawei.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data
   Models'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28.txt) as Best Current Practice

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-rfc8407bis/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of
   specifications containing YANG modules, including IANA-maintained
   modules.  Recommendations and procedures are defined, which are
   intended to increase interoperability and usability of Network
   Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) and RESTCONF Protocol
   implementations that utilize YANG modules.  This document obsoletes
   RFC 8407.

   Also, this document updates RFC 8126 by providing additional
   guidelines for writing the IANA considerations for RFCs that specify
   IANA-maintained modules.

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? 

There was no controversy about any particular points in the WG itself.

However, the document did get some feedback as part of the TSVART review, which was
considered by the WG, but the rough consensus from the WG was not to adopt the
changes as suggested. Here is a direct link to that review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/QcAw9pagRaSHRvQpq8fGExRqtHE/ And
here is a direct link to the related discussion within WG:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/KJoBZCXsf-2YE2r2yw_WmcVrP6I/


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?

This document is a BCP.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Qiufang Ma. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  There is an IANA Considerations section that requests a few updates to
  the IANA registries and in addition, add a reference to the document.

RFC Editor Note