(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard and it indicates it as such
on title header page. The document is a "bis" version of RFC 7895, which was
also a Proposed Standard.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.
This document describes a YANG library that provides information
about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used by a
network management server. Simple caching mechanisms are provided to
allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information. This
version of the YANG library supports the Network Management Datastore
Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
management server and the schema that is used by each of these
datastores.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
There was robust amount of discussion in the WG about this document. There was
quite a bit of discussion around the deprecation of the current module-list
container and its replacement by the new structure that caters to NMDA
requirements. In the end, the WG felt the changes were not too onerous to
implement for the ability to support different schemas for different datastores.
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?
A virtual interim was held in December 2017 by the WG to address some of the
more pressing issues raised which resulted in an update of the document.
Vendors have indicated a plan to implement the specification, including Tail-f.
Finally, there was a YANG Doctors review of the document by Reshad Rehman that
resulted in a few changes to the document. There is one comment from the YANG
Doctors review that was agreed upon, but is not reflected in the latest version
of the draft and is related to changing the name of the grouping
'implementation-parameters' to 'module-implementation-parameters'. The authors
have been asked to make the change.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible Area Director
is Ignas Bagdonas.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document, and found a few nits which
have been posted to the WG for the authors to address. While none will prevent
the document from making progress, it sure would be nice if they are addressed
before IESG reviews the document.
There are two errors reported as part of YANG validation that should be
addressed before the document is sent forth.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No, the Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth, and
breath of the reviews that have been performed. Several folks have reviewed the
document and provided critical comments which have been discussed and addressed
by the document authors.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
The Document Shepherd does not believe a broader review is needed at this time.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues related to
the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, each authors has confirmed on the WG mailing list that they are not aware
of any IPRs related to the document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No. No IPR disclosure has been filed against the document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The WG seems to understand the impact of the change and have asked questions
that indicate that they are agreeable with the changes being suggested. But the
true impact of this will be felt only once servers have implemented NMDA
datastores and have different schemas for different datastores.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise 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.)
No, no one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent,
other than questioning the need for NMDA overall. Andy Bierman, who is one of
the co-authors of the original RFC, has substantial reservations about the need
to address operational-state of a configuration.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
A run of idnits was performed and issues raised from it were included as part
of Shepherd review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document was referred for a YANG Doctors review and such a review was
performed on the document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, all the references in the document have been identified as either
normative or informative. Some of those references might change by the time the
document is ready for publication, as the references make progress.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
None of the normative references in the document should be a problem. The only
normative reference in the document which is marked I-D, is now a RFC.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No. There are no downward normative references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document will obsolete RFC 7895, as noted in the title page, and the
document outlines a upgrade path for implementations that want to move from RFC
7895 to this document.
(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
The IANA consideration section outlines the changes the document is raising. In
particular, the document specifies that it is taking over registry entries made
by RFC 7895. The only question I would have is if a RFC Editor note is needed
to update the IANA registration to point to the new RFC number once this
document is approved.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new IANA registries have been requested.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The Document Shepherd did try to validate the XML example in the document in
the Appendix section, and pointed the same to the authors as part of the
Shepherd review. The error message was not very instructive, and as it turns
out is on the module and not the example. Till the error is fixed, it would be
difficult to validate the example.