I have completed the shepherd review of the RESTCONF draft v13. I believe the document went through different review cycles, has been updated based on comments several times and is now ready for publication.
(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 is intended to be a Standards document. As a new protocol specification the document type is appropriate. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page 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:
This draft specifies an HTTP-based protocol that provides a programmatic interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores defined in NETCONF. RESTCONF is a major protocol for the HTTP-based management of devices. It is already well-accepted and in used in diverse industry projects.
Working Group Summary
NETCONF WG discussed the document (first as draft-bierman-netconf-restconf) since September 2013 and issued 2 WG last calls each for 3 weeks. Diverse related WGs including Core, 6tisch, 6lo, i2rs, netmod have been invited to review.
There was detailed discussion on RESTCONF issues and some of the discussion points led to controversy. So far all comments and issues have been addressed and closed on Netconf Github.
This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF meetings and on the mailing list.
The protocol RESTCONF has been implemented by diverse WG members and vendors which brought in their comments and suggestions for improvement.
The document shepherd is Mehmet Ersue. The responsible AD is Benoit Claise.
(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 have followed the progress of the document through its development in NETCONF WG and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed all outstanding comments in the latest draft version.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the amount of review the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties.
(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.
The document is assumed to have had sufficient amount of review from different IETF WGs and 2 WG LC cycles in NETCONF WG. The shepherd thinks that there is no need for an additional review from additional parties.
(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, the Document Shepherd does not have any specific 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.
The WG members and the authors have been asked to disclose potential IPRs. The authors confirmed on the mailing list that they don't know any IPR related to the draft. No WG member indicated on the maillist an IPR to this document.
(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 have been filed that reference this document.
(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 is strong consensus from diverse individuals and contributors, who have voiced support for the document.
(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.)
(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.
A idnits run on the document reveals the following.
There is one case of using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST'.
A few outdated draft references which can be seen as editorial.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
Having XPATH as normative reference is correct.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review criteria encountered.
(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?
The drafts draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json, and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata are currently in RFC editors queue and/or in AD evaluation.
(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.
(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).
The IANA considerations section asks for following type of entries: "restconf" Relation Type, YANG Module registries, application/yang Media Sub Types and RESTCONF Capability URNs. The requested IANA entries have been specified appropriately.
The IANA considerations section details four changes that would be required as a result of this draft. The first is a addition in the IETF XML registry for which it follows the format in RFC 3688. The document requests a registry entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020). It also defines two new MIME media types and registers one capability identifier in RESTCONF Protocol Capability URNs registry.
(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, etc.
A YANG module validation check was done using http://www.yangvalidator.com/ to verify the YANG modules RESTCONF Module and RESTCONF Monitoring Module within the draft without warnings or errors.