Shepherd writeup

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 1 November 2019.

(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 defines a YANG model for specifying the capability of Network Security Function (NSF), and thus a standard track document is appropriate.  The standards track is noted in the header of the 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 provides a YANG data model [RFC6020][RFC7950] that defines the capabilities of NSFs to centrally manage the capabilities of those security devices. The security devices can register their own capabilities into a Network Operator Management (Mgmt) System (i.e., Security Controller) with this YANG data model through the registration interface [RFC8329]. With the capabilities of those security devices maintained centrally, those security devices can be easily managed [RFC8329]. This YANG data model is based on the information model for I2NSF NSF capabilities [draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability].

Working Group Summary:
This document was one of the milestones for the I2NSF WG. The document went through long period discussions within the I2NSF WG and with NETMOD WG participants. Many changes were made to utilize the modules that are already specified by draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model as much as possible.   The document then went through the YANG Doctor review process. Got good comments and feedback from YANG Doctor Review. The authors addressed feedbacks promptly until the YANG Doctor are satisfied with the YANG models and entered READY for the document. 

Document Quality:
This document is well-written and has gone through a number of working group and external reviews.
The YANG module itself validates without any warnings, and have passed YANG Doctor Review. 
There have been Hackathon implementation and Open source implementation for the YANG model specified by this document. In addition, multiple vendors on the co-author list all indicated that they plan to implement. 


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 
Document Shepherd is Linda Dunbar
The Responsible Area Director is Roman Danyliw

(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. 
I have read this document and have provided feedback on previous revisions to the authors.  I feel this document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 
No, I do not.

(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. 
I don’t think so. 

(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. 
No specific concerns for 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.  All authors replied.  These responses can be found in the archives of the I2nsf list.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 
2 IPR disclosures were filed against this document. There were some concerns of the IPR terms. After some discussion, the authors had their respective companies change the IPR terms to satisfy WG participants’ requests. 

(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? 
Consensus was strong with no vocalized dissension.

(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.) 
Not to my knowledge.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 
 No ID nits found during Shepherd review. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 
The document has gone through YANG Doctor review. Has revised to address comments received from YANG Doctor review. YANG Doctor thinks this document ready for publication. 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or 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? 
No. All normative references are published RFCs. 

(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. 

(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. 
No, it will not.

(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 8126). 
This document does not define any new IANA registries, but it does request the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]: 
Uri: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-capability
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950]: name: ietf-i2nsf-capability
All the referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified by the document. 

(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. 

(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, YANG modules, etc.
This document has passed the automated YANG check, which includes a number of validators.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( 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 RFC8342?
The YANG module specified by the document has passed the validation and pass the YANG Doctor review.