As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
(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?
A Proposed Standard is being requested.
A proposed standard is needed to ensure interoperability.
The title page header indicates that it is Standards Track document.
(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
This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and
notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
text.
Working Group Summary
The JSON encoding is one of the two media types supported by the
RESTCONF protocol [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]. This document was discussed
multiple times during the RESTCONF specification process. The main issue has been
around the encoding of the "anyxml" type, which YANG 1.1 no longer recommends using. The
document went through 3 WG last calls, and there is broad consensus on the final version.
Document Quality
There are several existing RESTCONF implementations, and some others being
worked on, that either support both XML and JSON encoding, or are JSON-only,
for example:
* YumaWork’s YumaPro platform's SDK
* Linux Foundation’s OpenDaylight platform
* Juniper’s Contrail Service Orchestration platform
Other tools and libraries also support the JSON encoding defined
in this document, including:
* The popular `pyang` utility
* The libyang library
Personnel
The Shepherd is Kent Watsen. The AD is Benoit Claise.
(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 went through the checklist listed here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns
(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.
No portions of the document have been flagged as needing to be reviewed
from a particular or from broader perspective.
(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 has no specific concerns or issues with this 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 (on October 18th)
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosure has been filed.
(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 consensus behind the document is solid. The only point of contention
during the review process was related to the fact that some YANG 1.0 concepts,
most notably the "anyxml" data node, are rather XML-specific. However, this is
only marginally important because YANG 1.1 now recommends using "any data"
as an encoding-independent analogy of "anyxml".
(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 one has threatened an appeal otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document has been reviewed by members of the YANG Doctors group.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Y es, all references have been partitioned into these two groupings.
The groupings seem okay except the normative reference to RFC6241, is the
only text that uses this reference does so in an informative way, so I think that
this reference should be moved to informative.
(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?
There are no normative references to documents and aren’t ready for advancement.
(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.
There are no normative references to documents and aren’t ready for advancement.
(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.
Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(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).
This document does not have an IANA Considerations section.
(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.
This document does not define any new IANA registries.
(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 ABNF in Section 4 passed visual inspection. The examples throughout
the document passed visual inspection.