YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09
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-netconf-udp-client-server@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers' (draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network Configuration 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-netconf-udp-client-server/
Ballot Text
Technical Summary This document defines two YANG 1.1 modules with reusable groupings for managing UDP clients and UDP servers. Notes to the RFC editor This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Please replace "RFC XXXX" with the assigned RFC number prior to publication. Note that there are also several occurrences of "RFC XXXX" in the YANG 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? 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? Per Shepherd's Report: In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/ With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list. An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple local-port's for a udp or tcp server. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf. datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/ Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Thomas Graf. The Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani. IANA Note (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)
RFC Editor Note