< draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-04.txt		draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-05.txt >
	RTGWG Y. Qu		RTGWG Y. Qu
	Internet-Draft Huawei		Internet-Draft Huawei
	Intended status: Informational J. Tantsura		Intended status: Informational J. Tantsura
	Expires: April 22, 2019 Apstra		Expires: July 11, 2019 Apstra
	A. Lindem		A. Lindem
	Cisco		Cisco
	X. Liu		X. Liu
	Volta Networks		Volta Networks
	October 19, 2018		January 7, 2019
	A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management		A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management
	draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-04		draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing		This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
	routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual		routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
	operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework		operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework
	which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.		which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Goals and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Goals and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Model overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Model overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Route policy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Route policy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1. Defined sets for policy matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Defined sets for policy matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. Policy conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Policy conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		11. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] data model for		This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] data model for
	routing policy configuration based on operational usage and best		routing policy configuration based on operational usage and best
	practices in a variety of service provider networks. The model is		practices in a variety of service provider networks. The model is
	intended to be vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage		intended to be vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage
	policy configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous		policy configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous
	environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.		environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 12 ¶
	generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions.		generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions.
	These are shown below.		These are shown below.
	+--rw routing-policy		+--rw routing-policy
	+--rw policy-definitions		+--rw policy-definitions
	+--rw policy-definition* [name]		+--rw policy-definition* [name]
	+--rw statements		+--rw statements
	+--rw statement* [name]		+--rw statement* [name]
	+--rw actions		+--rw actions
	+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type		+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type
	+--rw set-metric? uint32		+--rw set-metric? union
	+--rw set-preference? uint16		+--rw set-preference? union
	4.4. Policy subroutines		4.4. Policy subroutines
	Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing		Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing
	policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions		policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions
	using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their		using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their
	conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy		conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy
	statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy		statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy
	affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy		affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy
	results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the		results in an accept-route, then the subroutine returns an effective
	subroutine returns an effective boolean true value to the calling		boolean true value to the calling policy. For the calling policy,
	policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition		this is equivalent to a condition statement evaluating to a true
	statement evaluating to a true value and evaluation of the policy		value and evaluation of the policy continues (see Section 5). Note
	continues (see Section 5). Note that the called policy may also		that the called policy may also modify attributes of the route in its
	modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly,		action statements. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false
	a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation		and the calling policy evaluation will be affected accordingly. When
	will be affected accordingly. Consequently, a subroutine cannot		the end of the subroutine policy chain is reached, the default route
	explicitly accept or reject a route. Rather it merely provides an		disposition action is returned (i.e., boolean false for reject-route
	indication that 'call-policy' condition returns boolean true or false		unless an alternate default action is specified for the chain).
	indicating whether or not the condition matches. Route acceptance or		Consequently, a subroutine cannot explicitly accept or reject a
	rejection is solely determined by the top-level policy.		route. Rather it merely provides an indication that 'call-policy'
			condition returns boolean true or false indicating whether or not the
			condition matches. Route acceptance or rejection is solely
			determined by the top-level policy.
	Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject		Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject
	to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a		to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a
	nesting depth because this varies among implementations. For		nesting depth because this varies among implementations. For
	example, some major implementation may only support a single level of		example, some major implementation may only support a single level of
	subroutine recursion. As with any routing policy construction, care		subroutine recursion. As with any routing policy construction, care
	must be taken with nested policies to ensure that the effective		must be taken with nested policies to ensure that the effective
	return value results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a		return value results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a
	convenience in many routing policy constructions but creating		convenience in many routing policy constructions but creating
	policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be		policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be
	discouraged.		discouraged.
	5. Policy evaluation		5. Policy evaluation
	Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its		Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
	corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a		corresponding individual policy statements in order. When all the
	condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the		condition statements in a policy statement are satisfied, the
	corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement		corresponding action statements are executed. If the actions include
	has either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the		either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the
	current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in		current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in
	the chain are evaluated.		the chain are evaluated.
	If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the		If the conditions are not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the
	next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions		next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions
	are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition		are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition
	stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.		stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.
	When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route		When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route
	disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an		disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an
	alternate default action is specified for the chain).		alternate default action is specified for the chain).
			Note that the route's pre-policy attributes are always used for
			testing policy statement conditions. In other words, if actions
			modify the policy application specific attributes, those
			modifications are not used for policy statement conditions.
	6. Applying routing policy		6. Applying routing policy
	Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in		Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in
	various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy		various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy
	definitions (described in Section 4) that have an associated		definitions (described in Section 4) that have an associated
	direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in		direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in
	which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply-		which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply-
	policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As		policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As
	shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains,		shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains,
	as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when		as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when
	skipping to change at page 12, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 48 ¶
	| +--rw bgp-pol:match-ext-community-set		| +--rw bgp-pol:match-ext-community-set
	| | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set?		| | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set?
	| | +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options?		| | +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options?
	| | match-set-options-type		| | match-set-options-type
	| +--rw bgp-pol:match-as-path-set		| +--rw bgp-pol:match-as-path-set
	| +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set?		| +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set?
	| +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options?		| +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options?
	| match-set-options-type		| match-set-options-type
	+--rw actions		+--rw actions
	+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type		+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type
	+--rw set-metric? uint32		+--rw set-metric? union
	+--rw set-preference? uint16		+--rw set-preference? union
	+--rw bgp-pol:bgp-actions		+--rw bgp-pol:bgp-actions
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-route-origin?		+--rw bgp-pol:set-route-origin?
	bgp-types:bgp-origin-attr-type		bgp-types:bgp-origin-attr-type
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-local-pref? uint32		+--rw bgp-pol:set-local-pref? uint32
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-next-hop? bgp-next-hop-type		+--rw bgp-pol:set-next-hop? bgp-next-hop-type
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-med? bgp-set-med-type		+--rw bgp-pol:set-med? bgp-set-med-type
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-as-path-prepend		+--rw bgp-pol:set-as-path-prepend
	| +--rw bgp-pol:repeat-n? uint8		| +--rw bgp-pol:repeat-n? uint8
	+--rw bgp-pol:set-community		+--rw bgp-pol:set-community
	| +--rw bgp-pol:method? enumeration		| +--rw bgp-pol:method? enumeration
	skipping to change at page 13, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 12 ¶
	YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry		YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry
	[RFC6020].		[RFC6020].
	10. YANG modules		10. YANG modules
	The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the		The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the
	sections below.		sections below.
	10.1. Routing policy model		10.1. Routing policy model
	<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing-policy@2018-10-19.yang"		<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing-policy@2019-01-07.yang"
	module ietf-routing-policy {		module ietf-routing-policy {
	yang-version "1.1";		yang-version "1.1";
	namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy";		namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy";
	prefix rt-pol;		prefix rt-pol;
	import ietf-inet-types {		import ietf-inet-types {
	prefix "inet";		prefix "inet";
	}		}
	import ietf-yang-types {		import ietf-yang-types {
	prefix "yang";		prefix "yang";
	}		}
	import ietf-interfaces {		import ietf-interfaces {
	prefix "if";		prefix "if";
	skipping to change at page 15, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 19 ¶
	<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>		<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>
	Anees Shaikh		Anees Shaikh
	<mailto:aashaikh@google.com>";		<mailto:aashaikh@google.com>";
	description		description
	"This module describes a YANG model for routing policy		"This module describes a YANG model for routing policy
	configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy		configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy
	configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor		configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor
	implementations, but supports widely used constructs for		implementations, but supports widely used constructs for
	managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across		managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across
	different routing protocols. This module is intended to be used		different routing protocols. This module is intended to be
	in conjunction with routing protocol configuration modules		used in conjunction with routing protocol configuration modules
	(e.g., BGP) defined in other models.		(e.g., BGP) defined in other models.
	Route policy expression:		Route policy expression:
	Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy definitions,		Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy
	each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements.		definitions, each of which consists of a sequence of policy
	Policy statements consist of simple condition-action tuples.		statements. Policy statements consist of simple
	Conditions may include mutiple match or comparison operations,		condition-action tuples. Conditions may include mutiple match
	and similarly actions may be multitude of changes to route		or comparison operations, and similarly actions may be
	attributes or a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the		multitude of changes to route attributes or a final disposition
	route.		of accepting or rejecting the route.
	Route policy evaluation:		Route policy evaluation:
	Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol		Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol
	configurations using import and export configuration statements.		configurations using import and export configuration
	The arguments are members of an ordered list of named policy		statements. The arguments are members of an ordered list of
	definitions which comprise a policy chain, and optionally, an		named policy definitions which comprise a policy chain, and
	explicit default policy action (i.e., reject or accept).		optionally, an explicit default policy action (i.e., reject
			or accept).
	Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its		Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
	corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a		corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
	condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the		condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
	corresponding action statement is executed. If the action		corresponding action statement is executed. If the action
	statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions,		statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions,
	policy evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and		policy evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and
	no further policy definitions in the chain are evaluated.		no further policy definitions in the chain are evaluated.
	If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to		If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to
	the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement		the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement
	conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy		conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy
	definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is		definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain
	evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the		is evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the
	default route disposition action is performed (i.e.,		default route disposition action is performed (i.e.,
	reject-route unless an alternate default action is specified		reject-route unless an alternate default action is specified
	for the chain).		for the chain).
	Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by		Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by
	allowing policy statement conditions to reference another policy		allowing policy statement conditions to reference another
	definition which applies conditions and actions from the		policy definition which applies conditions and actions from
	referenced policy before returning to the calling policy		the referenced policy before returning to the calling policy
	statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy		statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy
	results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then		results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default),
	the subroutine returns an effective true value to the calling		then the subroutine returns an effective true value to the
	policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false. If the		calling policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns
	subroutine returns true, the calling policy continues to		false. If the subroutine returns true, the calling policy
	evaluate the remaining conditions (using a modified route if the		continues to evaluate the remaining conditions (using a
	subroutine performed any changes to the route).";		modified route if the subroutine performed any changes to the
			route).";
	revision "2018-10-19" {		revision "2019-01-07" {
	description		description
	"Initial revision.";		"Initial revision.";
	reference		reference
	"RFC XXXX: Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service		"RFC XXXX: Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service
	Provider Networks";		Provider Networks";
	}		}
	// typedef statements		// typedef statements
	typedef default-policy-type {		typedef default-policy-type {
	skipping to change at page 24, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 43 ¶
	}		}
	}		}
	grouping tag-set-condition {		grouping tag-set-condition {
	description		description
	"This grouping provides tag-set conditions";		"This grouping provides tag-set conditions";
	container match-tag-set {		container match-tag-set {
	leaf tag-set {		leaf tag-set {
	type leafref {		type leafref {
	path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" +		path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/tag-sets" +
	"/name";		"/tag-set/name";
	require-instance true;		require-instance true;
	}		}
	description "References a defined tag set";		description "References a defined tag set";
	}		}
	uses match-set-options-restricted-group;		uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
	description		description
	"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined		"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined
	in the match-options-set leaf";		in the match-options-set leaf";
	}		}
	skipping to change at page 30, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 31, line 4 ¶
	11. Policy examples		11. Policy examples
	Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the		Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the
	routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are		routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are
	defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has		defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has
	been simplified for readability.		been simplified for readability.
	<?yfile include="file:///tmp/routing-policy-example-draft.xml"?>		<?yfile include="file:///tmp/routing-policy-example-draft.xml"?>
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative references		12.1. Normative references
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang]
	Wilton, R., Ball, D., tsingh@juniper.net, t., and S.
	Sivaraj, "Common Interface Extension YANG Data Models",
	draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-06 (work in progress),
	July 2018.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,		[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.		editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for		[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
	the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,		the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, <https://www.rfc-
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.		editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
	[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",		[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
	RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,		RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
	[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",		[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
	RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,		RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	skipping to change at page 31, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 32, line 7 ¶
	and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture		and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
	(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,		(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
	[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface		[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
	Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,		Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
	[RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for		[RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for
	Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,		Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.		editor.org/info/rfc8349>.
			[I-D.ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang]
			Wilton, R., Ball, D., tsingh@juniper.net, t., and S.
			Sivaraj, "Common Interface Extension YANG Data Models",
			draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-06 (work in progress),
			July 2018.
	12.2. Informative references		12.2. Informative references
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
	Patel, K., Jethanandani, M., and S. Hares, "BGP Model for		Patel, K., Jethanandani, M., and S. Hares, "BGP Model for
	Service Provider Networks", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-03		Service Provider Networks", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-03
	(work in progress), May 2018.		(work in progress), May 2018.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		Appendix A. Acknowledgements
	The routing policy module defined in this draft is based on the		The routing policy module defined in this draft is based on the
	OpenConfig route policy model. The authors would like to thank to		OpenConfig route policy model. The authors would like to thank to
	OpenConfig for their contributions, especially Anees Shaikh, Rob		OpenConfig for their contributions, especially Anees Shaikh, Rob
	Shakir, Kevin D'Souza, and Chris Chase.		Shakir, Kevin D'Souza, and Chris Chase.
	The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document		The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document
	and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh		and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh
	George, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric Osborne,		George, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric Osborne,
	Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, and Russ White.		Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, Russ White, and
			John Heasley.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Yingzhen Qu		Yingzhen Qu
	Huawei		Huawei
	2330 Central Expressway		2330 Central Expressway
	Santa Clara CA 95050		Santa Clara CA 95050
	USA		USA
	Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com		Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com
End of changes. 35 change blocks.
	81 lines changed or deleted		92 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/