Shepherd writeup

Template version:  (RFC 4858)  2/24/2012:  
Status: Send to AD, More than 5 authors all of whom worked on Yang model 

Nits:  indication of pre-RFC5378 work seems to be error in general XML.  
          Aid sought to fix.  Revision -06 will fix this plus ephemeral-state update 

(1) What type of RFC: Standard.   
   Why? Yang data 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

  This document defines a YANG data model for layer 3 network  topologies.

Working Group Summary
Clear consensus.  Talk about for over a year so the last discussion just has "ship it".  
Document Quality
The data model has been implemented in the open Daylight.   Used as part of their network.  People are planning to pick up the implementation from ODL.  Vendors planning implementations included:  Packet Design (client), Huawei, and Cisco. 


Routing directorate review: Matt Richarsdon, Chris Hopps

Yang doctors: Ladislav Lhotka

Gen-ART: Paul Kyzivat

SEC-DIR:Hilarie Orman

OPS-DIR: Ron Bonica

Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG chairs: Susan Hares and Russ White 
Responsible AD: Alia Atlas
OPS AD for Yang: Benoit Claise 
RTG-DIR reviewer: Matt Richardson, Chris Hopps 
Yang-Doctors reviewer:  Ladislav Lhotka
OPS-DIR Reviewer: Ron Bonica 
SEC-DIR Reviewer: Hilarie Orman
Gen-ART: Paul Kyzivat

(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.

3 years of review and debate, creation of the NMDA by NETMOD by 
I2RS requirements, Review of every comment by shepherd, 
Discussion with all parties.  

It is validated, debated, check, re-check, and - everyone says ship it. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

All reviews and reviwers have been have been top quality. 

(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.

YANG Doctors, OPS-DIR, GEN-ART,  SEC-DIR, RTG-DIR - all have reviewed prior to submission. 

(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.

This document implementations and wide-spread vendor support.  It is key for other topology yang models.  
NMDA capable model that can be deployed in configuration datastore or dynamic datastore. 

(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.

All IPR completed 

Alex Clemm IPR
Jan Medved IPR

Xuefeng Liu

Robert Varga

 Nitin Bahadur IPR 

I. Bryskin

 A. Guo 

Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No 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?   

Solid with lots of discussion.  Model desired by other WGs as base model.  
ADs, WGs (netmod, netconf, I2RS) want it shipped. 

(10) 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 appeals.  Everyone in the WG and in the NETCONF/NETMOD, and Benoit Claise wants draft shipped. 

(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

 NITs reported seem to be a bug.  AD and Shepherd should discuss the 
 NITS so other ADs do not have problem. 

(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?

  [I-D.draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo] - is being forwarded at the same time 
 All other normative references exist. 

(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 downward references. 

(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 changes to existing RFCs. This is new work. 

(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).

all ready. 

(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 new registries. Registers namespace URIs

(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 automated checks on the yang text prior to submission. 
All passed at this time.