Shepherd's open issues: (2/9/2018)
1) suggested -14.txt for authors with additional change based on
a) Henning Rogge's - 2 and 3rd comments,
b) Mahesh Jethanandani - comments.
I have forwarded you copies of my comments. I believe these can be processed in
parallel with your reading. In the interest of catching the AD's time, I am
running these two processes in parallel. Sue Hares
=============
Shepherd's review is Required by RFC 4858, template date: 2/24/2012.
======
(1) What type of RFC: Informational
Why: Yang Informational model
(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
Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a
routing information base (RIB). Protocols and configuration push
data into the RIB and the RIB manager installs state into the
hardware; for packet forwarding. This draft specifies a information
model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model. Such
a data model can be used to define an interface to the RIB from an
entity that may even be external to the network device. This
interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the
IETF I2RS WG.
Working Group Summary
The I2RS WG and the authors have survived all
IETF processes and patient waiting on the
NETMOD/NETCONF WG to complete its work on
revising the nework management datastore architecture.
The 13 revisions over 5 years are testimony to the
the continue support. At last, all the
network management datastore architectures are complete.
Now, perhaps we can approve the IM which has
not changed for 4 years.
Document Quality
This is an informational model which
helped form the draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model.
The document has been through repeated reviews
and debates within netmod/I2rs.
It is worth publishing because we see repeatly additional
attempts to do a RIB model without the same thought.
This model can support NMDA dynamic datastores or
normal datastores. It depends on where it is mounted.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd?: Susan Hares
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alia Atlas
RTG-DIR: Henning Rouge
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-11-rtgdir-early-rogge-2017-08-01/
OPS-DIR: Mahesh Jethanandani
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-12-opsdir-early-jethanandani-2018-01-12/
(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.
1) Reviewed the ID-nits
2) Requested early OPS-DIR and Routing-DIR review of this model.
Reviewed -13.txt to determine if these suggestions were followed.
Sent author suggested changes for version -14.txt of this model.
3) Read this document repeatedly over 5 years
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
Not after 5 years. The information model was debated and
discussed by the WG as things changed. At a certain point,
we switched to debating the subset of the features that
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model contained and their
impact on NMDA yang model architecture and netconf/restcont. This informational
model needs to be published because several of the high
level ideas were not able to be followed-up on in I2RS.
(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.
As a Informational model, it would be good to have Yang doctors and
RTG-DIR review these models again. We've pushed toward publication
because follow-up on the requests for review of changs have not occurred.
(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.
I am comfortable with this document as a summary of a great deal of
work that went on in the I2RS WG.
Many IESG members do not like publishing Informational Models, so
I would make a specific plea for this informational model.
We had a substantial amount of discussion that produced insights
regarding RIBS. I am seeing these same discussion start to reoccur in
other WGs regarding RIBs. This informational model captures the
high-level concepts that any RIB will want to consider. Rather than
waste time of other groups to re-do this effort, I ask that the IESG
publish this informational model.
The high level RIB model was not specifically ephemeral dynamic datastores, but
designed to work in any datastore (configuration or dynamic).
(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.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Nitin Bhandura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/O_ypXeOuu1llF1GBnaLyBDzG5lA
Sriganesh Kini
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/MjDY8zV7ShMV10kLAznmM1ERQ-4
Jan Medved
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/3YeQ0hDoxz-rmm0o6F5tg4w26XU
(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?
We have talk about this model for 5 years, and there
has been 4 WG LC pulled back. So, if you are looking for strong
indications in email - see 5 years ago.
The network management datastore architecture has delayed this
over and over. It is strong agreement 5 years ago and wanning interest
due to the long period of time it has taken to work through the
NMDA architecture. The NMDA design is sound, but this
WGs active actions on the last calls is a casuality of the IETF process.
If it sounds like this WG Chair and the WG are tired after this process,
let this be a lesson to future IESGs.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Only 3 nits - which appear to be problems with he idnits tool.
== Line 409 has weird spacing: '... base load...'
== Line 426 has weird spacing: '...thop-id egres...'
== Line 434 has weird spacing: '...l-encap tunne...'
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Yang informational model should go to RTG-DIR and Yang doctors for follow-up.
(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.
no.
(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).
No IANA action needed in this 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.
No IANA action needed in this document.
(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 RIB information in section 6 uses: Routing Backus-Naur Form [RFC5511].
As far as I know, there is no automated tests for this form.