Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-babel-information-model-10

 (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?

Informational as indicated on the title page.

 (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:

The Babel Information Model document provides structured data elements
for a Babel implementation reporting its current state and may allow
limited configuration of some such data elements.  This information
model can be used as a basis for creating data models under various
data modeling regimes.

  Working Group Summary:

There was continuing active discussion and improvement to the draft
for an extended after the initial Working Group Last Call so no
consensus judgement was made for that Last call. The list of
outstanding issues was updated and then presented and reviewed at WG
meeting at a number of IETF meeting, resolving many issues. Based on
the discussions and consensus on issue resolution shown on the mailing
list and at WG meetings, after a brief call for objections at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JLunyZA9YdXXVm7S3wxGklavcCY
the draft was declared to have consensus.

  Document Quality:

The draft has been extensively reviewed by the community of interest
and is of good quality.

  Personnel:
Document Shepherd:  Donald Eastlake, 3rd
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux

 (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.

Document Shepherd review at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kgvbBpp1iCYCi6KgPx2CVLo89cs
Response, which was accepted, at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/e_bMNw7KrnnaAVQNw_sZwmskL8c

 (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.

A routing review was performed. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UKxCP97gJhjF5Rln3LXIewxX2lY
Initial response is here
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qSCbwgrnLvsx84ctJABKbEWcCjA
Note that a separate YANG Model draft is progressing and about to
enter WG Last Call. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-yang-model/

 (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?

No special concerns.

 (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, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mzwyXc_C-7YX_pZxy_9MDkuKQ4c
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qUXjl_2lYNKRCqWzu74SC4gw9S0

 (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 disclosures.

 (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?

There was a strong consensus among the subset of WG members that are
interested in data modeling for BABEL.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
     discontent?

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.

The nits checker gives 7 warnings, all of which are false alarms. Six
cases of "weird spacing" that are OK and one regular expression
character set misinterpreted as a reference.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
     criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
     reviews.

No such formal review required.

(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?

There are normative references to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and to
the Wireshark Libpcap File Format document. The rfc6126bis draft is
through IETF last call and in the process of resolving IESG COMMENTs
and DISCUSSes. The Wireshark Libpcap File Format document is akin to a
standard of an SDO other than the IETF and is available at
https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat

(15) Are there downward normative 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.

This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(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 requires no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
     future allocations.

No IANA registries created.

(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.

There is no such formal language in the draft although there is some
programming language-like notation in the draft.
Back