A YANG Data Model for Virtual Network (VN) Operations
draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-24

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
   (where)?

This document provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network (VN) operations. 
The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven 
by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

The data model provided in this document can work together with service models 
discussed in other WGs (OPSAWG, CCAMP). However, there isn't enough in-depth 
detail or dependency on any of these models to warrant a review from these other WGs.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2020-12-20/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, the current version of the YANG module has been checked with recommended
validation tools. Please refer to the YANG validation results on datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/

There are currently 0 errors and 2 warnings listed against the YANG module.
The 2 yanglint warnings are specific to an imported module (ietf-te-types) and
are not pertinent to this document.

The YANG module complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture 
(NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342]


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The YANG code in the document has been validated using prescribed YANG review
Tools. The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. 

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    Reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Standards Track". This is appropriate
for a document that provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network Operations. 
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There is an IPR disclosure associated with this
document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4215/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-07-04 and 2023-07-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2018-05-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The allocation requests made to the IANA in this document are appropriate
and the referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. There are no new 
IANA registries proposed in this document.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries proposed in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
   (where)?

This document provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network (VN) operations. 
The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven 
by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

The data model provided in this document can work together with service models 
discussed in other WGs (OPSAWG, CCAMP). However, there isn't enough in-depth 
detail or dependency on any of these models to warrant a review from these other WGs.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-10-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2020-12-20/

The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22-rtgdir-early-dukes-2024-01-23/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes, the current version of the YANG module has been checked with recommended
validation tools. Please refer to the YANG validation results on datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/

There are currently 0 errors and 2 warnings listed against the YANG module.
The 2 yanglint warnings are specific to an imported module (ietf-te-types) and
are not pertinent to this document.

The YANG module complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture 
(NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342]


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The YANG code in the document has been validated using prescribed YANG review
Tools. The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. 

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    Reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Standards Track". This is appropriate
for a document that provides a YANG data model for Virtual Network Operations. 
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There is an IPR disclosure associated with this
document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4215/

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-07-04 and 2023-07-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2018-05-10 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The allocation requests made to the IANA in this document are appropriate
and the referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. There are no new 
IANA registries proposed in this document.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no new IANA registries proposed in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Pre WGLC IPR Poll:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/8Ow7krt9phKP5BcjoGEcy7DU_fQ/

Responses:

younglee.tx@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/crkPYMZVAGxftKnn0TIQPIIOmV0/

Dhruv Dhody
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-rTWPvBvPgmNS9gkX9J3vNBR98Q/

daniele.ietf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/J9qr59t0X2pUHRF6RXKpMuUMCgU/

Qin Wu
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/vPn_bj1Uu-d4TuBhCpgM9Uraw_o/

peter.park@kt.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/qPO2fi8kjlgxAeGBGKSnRKMxnvE/

"Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/KE0-S0zzK2nGDIm7249mJTTuDmQ/

"Zhangxian (Xian)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Jz4tbCwyWNYNRpl-0Erqth8ZQrY/

"Ogaki, Kenichi"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JvA7v75S4fkQfPxxyuWVqb8zezM/


Missing Responses:

Igor Bryskin

byyun@etri.re.kr

"Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)"

ta-miyasaka@kddi.com

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Bin-Yeong Yoon , Peter Park , Dhruv Dhody , Igor Bryskin , Young Lee , Qin Wu