Updated YANG Module Revision Handling
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-15

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-yang-module-versioning@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Updated YANG Module Revision Handling' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updated YANG Module Revision Handling'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-15.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-yang-module-versioning/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document refines the RFC 7950 module update rules.  It specifies
   a new YANG module update procedure that can document when non-
   backwards-compatible changes have occurred during the evolution of a
   YANG module.  It extends the YANG import statement with a minimum
   revision suggestion to help document inter-module dependencies.  It
   provides guidelines for managing the lifecycle of YANG modules and
   individual schema nodes.  This document updates RFC 7950, RFC 6020,
   RFC 8407 and RFC 8525.

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?

Personnel

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

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note