As required by RFC 4858, this is a document shepherd writeup per the current
template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up (this is based on the template
version 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?
Proposed Standard. This is indicated in the title page header and is
appropriate for this RFC because it matches the Standards Track RFC 6728 (which
this document proposes for obsoletion).
(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 a flexible, modular YANG model for packet sampling
(PSAMP) and bulk data collection and export via the IPFIX protocol. This new
model replaces the model defined in RFC 6728, Configuration Data Model for the
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocols. All
functionality modeled in RFC 6728 has been carried over to this new model.
The YANG data models in this document conform to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.
This document obsoletes RFC 6728 (if approved).
Working Group Summary:
Not applicable (this document is being sponsored by the OPS AD).
Document Quality:
TBD (once the document has passed the YANG Doctors' review, will update to say
that the IPFIX protocol is widely implemented, the document has passed the YANG
Doctors' review, and that at least three vendors plan to implement the YANG
models defined in the document).
Personnel:
William Lupton (wfl@cantab.net) is the document shepherd and Ignas Bagdonas is
the responsible (and sponsoring) AD.
(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 carefully reviewed the specification before the 02 draft
was published, and his editorial comments were incorporated into the 02 draft.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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 shepherd feels that the document is mature, and that it does indeed (as
promised) contain all the RFC 6728 material. However, RFC 6728 was quite an
early YANG RFC, and the shepherd would appreciate feedback on whether a
"modern" YANG RFC should put so much emphasis on UML diagrams and classes (it
could instead refer more directly to YANG concepts).
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
Not applicable.
(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.
(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.
None. idnits has been run and all fixes arising from examining its output have
been applied.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
TBD (once the document has passed the YANG Doctors' review and the URIs and
YANG modules have been registered with IANA, will update this to say so).
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(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?
No.
(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.
(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.
Yes. This document obsoletes RFC 6728 (if approved).
(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 registers three URIs in the IETF XML registry and three YANG
modules in the YANG Module Names registry. This is properly identified in the
IANA 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.
None.
(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.
YANG has been validated using recent versions of pyang, yanger and yanglint.
XML examples have been validated using yanglint.