Shepherd writeup

(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 Proposed Standard and it indicates it as such on title header page. The document is a "bis" version of RFC 7895, which was also a Proposed Standard.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document describes a YANG library that provides information
about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used by a
network management server.  Simple caching mechanisms are provided to
allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information.  This
version of the YANG library supports the Network Management Datastore
Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
management server and the schema that is used by each of these

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There was robust amount of discussion in the WG about this document. There was quite a bit of discussion around the deprecation of the current module-list container and its replacement by the new structure that caters to NMDA requirements. In the end, the WG felt the changes were not too onerous to implement for the ability to support different schemas for different datastores.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A virtual interim was held in December 2017 by the WG to address some of the more pressing issues raised which resulted in an update of the document. Vendors have indicated a plan to implement the specification, including Tail-f. 

Finally, there was a YANG Doctors review of the document by Reshad Rehman that resulted in a few changes to the document. There is one comment from the YANG Doctors review that was agreed upon, but is not reflected in the latest version of the draft and is related to changing the name of the grouping 'implementation-parameters' to 'module-implementation-parameters'. The authors have been asked to make the change.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.

(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 has reviewed the document, and found a few nits which have been posted to the WG for the authors to address. While none will prevent the document from making progress, it sure would be nice if they are addressed before IESG reviews the document.

There are two errors reported as part of YANG validation that should be addressed before the document is sent forth.

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

No, the Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth, and breath of the reviews that have been performed. Several folks have reviewed the document and provided critical comments which have been discussed and addressed by the document authors.

(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 Shepherd does not believe a broader review is needed at this time.

(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.

The Document Shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues related to the 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, each authors has confirmed on the WG mailing list that they are not aware of any IPRs related to the 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. No IPR disclosure has been filed against the 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?

The WG seems to understand the impact of the change and have asked questions that indicate that they are agreeable with the changes being suggested. But the true impact of this will be felt only once servers have implemented NMDA datastores and have different schemas for different datastores.

(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, no one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent, other than questioning the need for NMDA overall. Andy Bierman, who is one of the co-authors of the original RFC, has substantial reservations about the need to address operational-state of a configuration.

(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.

A run of idnits was performed and issues raised from it were included as part of Shepherd review.

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

The document was referred for a YANG Doctors review and such a review was performed on the document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes, all the references in the document have been identified as either normative or informative. Some of those references might change by the time the document is ready for publication, as the references make progress.

(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?

None of the normative references in the document should be a problem. The only normative reference in the document which is marked I-D, is now a RFC.

(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. There are no downward normative 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.

This document will obsolete RFC 7895, as noted in the title page, and the document outlines a upgrade path for implementations that want to move from RFC 7895 to this document. 

(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 consideration section outlines the changes the document is raising. In particular, the document specifies that it is taking over registry entries made by RFC 7895. The only question I would have is if a RFC Editor note is needed to update the IANA registration to point to the new RFC number once this document is approved.

(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 IANA registries have been requested.

(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 Document Shepherd did try to validate the XML example in the document in the Appendix section, and pointed the same to the authors as part of the Shepherd review. The error message was not very instructive, and as it turns out is on the module and not the example. Till the error is fixed, it would be difficult to validate the example.