Internet-Draft Framework and YANG of OTN Slices March 2026
Guo Expires 19 September 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Common Control and Measurement Plane
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
A. Guo
Futurewei Technologies

Framework and Data Model for OTN Network Slicing

Abstract

TODO Abstract

About This Document

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

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://italobusi.github.io/test/draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group mailing list (mailto:ccamp@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/italobusi/test.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 September 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

TODO Introduction

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Operational Considerations

TBC per [I-D.opsarea-rfc5706bis].

4. Security Considerations

TODO Security

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

6.2. Informative References

[I-D.opsarea-rfc5706bis]
Claise, B., Clarke, J., Farrel, A., Barguil, S., Pignataro, C., and R. Chen, "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-06, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-06>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

Aihua Guo
Futurewei Technologies