Common YANG Data Types for Layer 1 Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-18

[Ballot comment]
Moving my previous DISCUSS ballot into an ABSTAIN as the IETF draft title is clearly misleading.

See previous discussion at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/sru8EK_CYa6WtHMxKj5wBRe8WVg/

Thanks for your work anyway

[Ballot comment]
I had originally written this up as a DISCUSS ballot, but am submitting it as NoObjection instead because Eric and John are holding DISCUSS on this.

The title is "A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types", and this speaks to a specific subset of L1 types -- the title really should be updated to clarify this. In addition, there are many acronyms that should be expanded.

I'm supporting Eric's DISCUSS.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Dale R. Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qjQFh6-iwZhg106VN_AjpNH1Br8).

## Comments

Agree with Éric on the overly unspecific title and abstract.

Also, has another YANG Doctors review happened since -04, as raised by Dale
Worley in his GEN-ART review (to which I have not seen a response)?

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-04`, but `-07` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-18`, but `-20` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-16`, but
`-17` is the latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang-09`, but `-10` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16`, but `-17` is the
latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 10
```
ble on a link, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 14
```
o be provided, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 4.3, paragraph 7
```
me cases, the TPN assignment rules depends on the TS Granularity (e.g., ODU2
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
The verb form "depends" does not seem to match the subject "rules".

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 1
```
ominal bit rate to be defined independently from the type of ODUflex. This co
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independently of"?

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 4
```
the value of 'gfp-n', is used to calculated the ODUflex(GFP,n,k) nominal bit
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
The verb after "to" should be in the base form.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 7
```
lients the value of 'n' is used to defines the value of s=5 x n. The 'flexe-
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
The verb after "to" should be in the base form.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
```
ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP, according to the ru
                                    ^^^^^
```
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
```
ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP along the underlay p
                                    ^^^^^
```
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Dale R. Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qjQFh6-iwZhg106VN_AjpNH1Br8).

## Comments

Agree with Éric on the overly unspecific title and abstract.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-04`, but `-07` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-18`, but `-20` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-16`, but
`-17` is the latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang-09`, but `-10` is the
latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16`, but `-17` is the
latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 10
```
ble on a link, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 14
```
o be provided, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 4.3, paragraph 7
```
me cases, the TPN assignment rules depends on the TS Granularity (e.g., ODU2
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
The verb form "depends" does not seem to match the subject "rules".

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 1
```
ominal bit rate to be defined independently from the type of ODUflex. This co
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independently of"?

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 4
```
the value of 'gfp-n', is used to calculated the ODUflex(GFP,n,k) nominal bit
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
The verb after "to" should be in the base form.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 7
```
lients the value of 'n' is used to defines the value of s=5 x n. The 'flexe-
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
The verb after "to" should be in the base form.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
```
ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP, according to the ru
                                    ^^^^^
```
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

#### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
```
ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP along the underlay p
                                    ^^^^^
```
The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
I had originally written this up as a DISCUSS ballot, but am submitting it as NoObjection instead because Eric and John are holding DISCUSS on this.

The title is "A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types", and this speaks to a specific subset of L1 types -- the title really should be updated to clarify this. In addition, there are many acronyms that should be expanded.

[Ballot comment]
Please expand acronyms on first use -- it is much more readable if reader's don't have to dig up references and only costs a few words. For example: OTN< ODU, HO, LSP, LO.

It would be useful to precisely define what you mean by "Layer 1" networks, which I gather is the physical layer. Or is this about optically switched networks, specifically? If so, it would be better to name things accordingly. I don't know much about this but it appears that any non-optical Layer 1 network (if such a thing exists) is not represented in this YANG module.

[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for raft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16

Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am not an optical expert, I have only reviewed the overall structure.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), and one non-blocking COMMENT point.

Special thanks to Daniel King for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Dirk Von Hugo, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2023-12-09/ (even if only nits, it would be nice to see a reply from the authors)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Layer 1 vs. OTN

The I-D title and the abstract first sentence (as well as CCAMP charter) are misleading: it is *not* about generic layer-1 but only about a very specific one: OTN. I.e., the content does not match the wrapping, please update the title and the abstract.

Obviously, this is not a DISCUSS level point but I want to get a discussion with the authors and the responsible AD(s) before clearing my ballot to either NoObj (if the scope is changed) or to abstain (if text/title is unchanged).

[Ballot discuss]
I am balloting DISCUSS to ensure this point isn't missed, but intend to convert to YES; this is an excellent document.

Please don't forget to consider Tom Petch's review, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/akNb8PDxCI5lw-HWx474EcMp1Cg/
In particular, Tom points out some references to possibly-outdated external specifications.

[Ballot comment]
In section 4.4 you mention OTN LTPs, I assume you're talking about "logical termination points". Please consider expanding LTP, I did check in RFC 7062 to see if it's defined there; it's not.

Also, when you produce a new version, please make sure you update the 2022 dates... unless there's some reason not to?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-layer1-types
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-layer1-types
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-layer1-types
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-layer1-types
Prefix: l1-types
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-11-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, daniel@olddog.co.uk, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Layer
1 Types'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-11-21. 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 collection of common data types and groupings
  in the YANG data modeling language for use with layer 1 networks.
  These derived common types and groupings are intended to be imported
  by modules that specify OTN networks, such as topology, tunnel,
  client signal adaptation and service.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15).

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

DK>> The document has two authors, and 9 contributors. This represents a significant slice of active CCAMP participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several suggestions for readability and English improvements.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations. However, several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required. However, the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF. The latest version (v15) has seen some changes to References to address WG concerns.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or warnings.

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during Last Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions which have been addressed to improve the document. However, it was suggested that Normative references to external SDOs should also include a publically available URL. This has not been provided and a reminder will be sent to the document authors. This issue might be addressed post-Routing Area Directorate Review.   

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues to be a general issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

DK>> The idnits tool has zero errors, 6 warnings and 2 comments. The warnings are due to incorrect formatting issues and do not impact the substance of the I-D.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

DK>> All normative references are freely available. However, the authors did not included URLs to publically available reference documents, including: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709]
and [MEF63]. They are however available via various Internet search engines.

DK>> There is one Informative Reference that is missing a publically available URL, [ITU-T_G.Sup43].
 
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

DK>> No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

DK>> No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

DK>> No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

DK>> No new registries required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15).

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

DK>> The document has two authors, and 9 contributors. This represents a significant slice of active CCAMP participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several suggestions for readability and English improvements.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations. However, several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required. However, the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF. The latest version (v15) has seen some changes to References to address WG concerns.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or warnings.

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during Last Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions which have been addressed to improve the document. However, it was suggested that Normative references to external SDOs should also include a publically available URL. This has not been provided and a reminder will be sent to the document authors. This issue might be addressed post-Routing Area Directorate Review.   

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues to be a general issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

DK>> The idnits tool has zero errors, 6 warnings and 2 comments. The warnings are due to incorrect formatting issues and do not impact the substance of the I-D.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

DK>> All normative references are freely available. However, the authors did not included URLs to publically available reference documents, including: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709]
and [MEF63]. They are however available via various Internet search engines.

DK>> There is one Informative Reference that is missing a publically available URL, [ITU-T_G.Sup43].
 
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

DK>> No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

DK>> No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

DK>> No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

DK>> No new registries required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14). This is a draft version as I have provided a detailed review of the I-D and provided the authors with a list of minor suggestions to address readability, English and NITs.

Once the authors submit the new version of the I-D, I will update the write-up and submit.

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

DK>> The document has two authors, and 9 contributors. This represents a significant slice of active CCAMP participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several suggestions for readability and English improvements.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations. However, several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required. However, the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF. The latest version (v15) has seen some changes to References to address WG concerns.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or warnings.

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during Last Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions which have been addressed to improve the document. However, it was suggested that Normative references to external SDOs should also include a publically available URL. This has not been provided and a reminder will be sent to the document authors. This issue might be addressed post-Routing Area Directorate Review.   

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues to be a general issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

DK>> The idnits tool has zero errors, 6 warnings and 2 comments. The warnings are due to incorrect formatting issues and do not impact the substance of the I-D.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

DK>> All normative references are freely available. However, the authors did not included URLs to publically available reference documents, including: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709]
and [MEF63]. They are however available via various Internet search engines.

DK>> There is one Informative Reference that is missing a publically available URL, [ITU-T_G.Sup43].
 
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

DK>> No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

DK>> No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

DK>> No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

DK>> No new registries required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14). This is a draft version as I have provided a detailed review of the I-D and provided the authors with a list of minor suggestions to address readability, English and NITs.

Once the authors submit the new version of the I-D, I will update the write-up and submit.

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

DK>> The document has two authors, and 9 contributors. This represents a significant slice of active CCAMP participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several suggestions for readability and English improvements.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations. However, several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required. However, the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF. The latest version (v15) has seen some changes to References to address WG concerns.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or warnings.

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during Last Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions which have been addressed to improve the document. However, it was suggested that Normative references to external SDOs should also include a publically available URL. This has not been provided and a reminder will be sent to the document authors. This issue might be addressed post-Routing Area Directorate Review.   

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues to be a general issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

DK>> The idnits tool has zero errors, 6 warnings and 2 comments. The warnings are due to incorrect formatting issues and do not impact the substance of the I-D.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

DK>> All normative references are freely available. However, the authors did not included URLs to publically available reference documents, including: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709]
and [MEF63]. They are however available via various Internet search engines. 

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

DK>> No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

DK>> No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

DK>> No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

DK>> No new registries required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14). This is a draft version as I have provided a detailed review of the I-D and provided the authors with a list of minor suggestions to address readability, English and NITs.

Once the authors submit the new version of the I-D, I will update the write-up and submit.

**Current version 12 September 2022**

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

DK>> The document has two authors, and 9 contributors. This represents a
significant slice of active CCAMP participants.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and
contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several suggestions for readability and English improvements.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations.
DK>> However,
several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required.
DK>> However,
the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG
DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. 

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model
DK>> conforms
to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during
DK>> Last
Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions for improving the document addressing Last Call comments from other reviewers. A new version of the I-D is expected, then the I-D can be handed to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning
continues to be a general issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a
DK>> Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]?
To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received
DK>> and
are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

DK>> The idnits tool has one error, 5 warnings and 7 comments. The
DK>> Shepherd
has provided some suggestions to address these minor issues.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

DK>> All normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

DK>> No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

DK>> No new registries required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/VVWzZvoCM_dIjIxXw-AMnqkKewE/

AUTHORS
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/B6o76b74K7bDOTYAGx77dTmjczg/
Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/mO1cs5yuqnQ2porE-Dsiv4DWeEQ/
Xufeng Liu xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/z5EBSY6dJHkB1oGhGz9IOYPiWCw/
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/d9m2sdys1DMcZ4Sdj3uELikInFE/
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AzH7DiP8Kijj46ECE5HlrjPYzsc/
Aihua Guo aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/j9kv2-SaCGyfrRjiRwBc-qcqQT0/
Anurag Sharma ansha@google.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NbWxLOGy4AmwOrz-upT9iZli_hE/
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Daqjyv4eSOVnDXhGO1siGHVfzEg/
Lei Wang wangleiyj@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/EeS5d9GpJlk_iJmnQqP7w_-YgRA/
Yunbo Li liyunbo@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/XDlSvvlhk5ASq1LkLxCc93UxAus/
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-186XuuQIZXBd3QMIotvUXFWC0E/
Yanlei Zheng zhengyanlei@chinaunicom.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/7DrLZCe89xMhvesTPjl_bPxPSco/
Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/W6vNWfnRQgik5PWYdjHJLDsKwjA/
Rajan Rao rrao@infinera.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/cYBy1Ty333Nuc-hxsNNwGEYLFb0/
Victor Lopez victor.lopez@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/3cwyFav6AIMbjP8KeMPzI7UMyrM/

Last call IPR polling update

draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/VVWzZvoCM_dIjIxXw-AMnqkKewE/

AUTHORS
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/B6o76b74K7bDOTYAGx77dTmjczg/
Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/mO1cs5yuqnQ2porE-Dsiv4DWeEQ/
Xufeng Liu xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/z5EBSY6dJHkB1oGhGz9IOYPiWCw/
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Aihua Guo aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/j9kv2-SaCGyfrRjiRwBc-qcqQT0/
Anurag Sharma ansha@google.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NbWxLOGy4AmwOrz-upT9iZli_hE/
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Daqjyv4eSOVnDXhGO1siGHVfzEg/
Lei Wang wangleiyj@chinamobile.com
Yunbo Li liyunbo@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/XDlSvvlhk5ASq1LkLxCc93UxAus/
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/-186XuuQIZXBd3QMIotvUXFWC0E/
Yanlei Zheng zhengyanlei@chinaunicom.cn
Young Lee younglee.tx@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/W6vNWfnRQgik5PWYdjHJLDsKwjA/
Rajan Rao rrao@infinera.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/cYBy1Ty333Nuc-hxsNNwGEYLFb0/
Victor Lopez victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com