Updates to NETCONF Transport Port Numbers
draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-07

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-port-numbers@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Updates to NETCONF Transport Port Numbers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updates to NETCONF Transport Port Numbers'
  (draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-07.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-port-numbers/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document releases NETCONF-related port number IANA assignments
   that have not stood the test of time (e.g., assignments for Historic
   NETCONF-related protocols).

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Configuration
   Working Group mailing list (netconf@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/boucadair/netconf-port-numbers.

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? 

The shepherd has confirmed that there was a strong consensus on
the document and that there was no controversy. There was feedback
from the Transport Area port assignment reviewer (Joe Touch), and
TSVART review by Michael Tuxen that were addressed in the document.

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?

N/A.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Kent Watsen. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

RFC Editor Note