YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-26

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my main previous DISCUSS point about proxies. The text in the introduction is enough indeed (even if some words also in abstract would be welcome).

For easy archiving, here is a pointer to the previous DISCUS:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/GLfFl9AzyUFI_2Kip4nNa5QNlOg/

Thanks to the authors for the easy and fast discussion and resolution.

[Ballot comment]
Similar to the ssh-server that defines keep-alives, I feel that if one believes keepalives are defined at this layer, that same layer should also define idle-timeout for a server.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Nancy Cam-Winget for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.1, .2 and .3 had the following reminder:

OLD
“Since the module in this document only define groupings, these considerations are primarily for the designers of other modules that use these groupings.”

Consider if something more direct such as the following could added to Section 5.0 to make it clear that enumerating all possible uses or sensitivities of these grouping is not possible and left to those who import these modules. 

NEW
The modules in this document define groupings and will not be deployed as standalone modules. Their security implications may be context dependent based on their use in other modules.  The designers of modules which import these grouping must conduct their own analysis of the security considerations.

** Section 5.1 and 5.3.  These sections indicate that there is no read or write sensitivities in modules ietf-tcp-common and ietf-tcp-server.

-- Per ietf-tcp-common, wouldn’t an attacker setting probe-interval=1 and idle-time=1 or max cause problems in certain networks?

-- Per ietf-tcp-server, wouldn’t reading the fields in tcp-server-grouping provide reconnaissance/targeting information for an attacker.  It seems like writing to these fields would break the configuration.

** Section 5.2.  This section indicates that there are no write sensitivities and only one read sensitivity.  Per ietf-tcp-client, wouldn’t writing to some of these fields break the configuring.  If given read access, could the list of available SOCKS provide service information to the attacker?

[Ballot comment]
EDIT: with another comment spurred by a different doc.

Thanks to Michael Tuexen for the TSVART review.

I support Eric's DISCUSS about support for HTTP CONNECT proxies, though I think MASQUE itself is not relevant here.

It's also important to indicate, probably in (2.1.5), that Keepalive MUST (SHOULD?) NOT be activated if there is application-level keepalive, as there is in SSH.

Nit:
(2.1.5) s/not universally accepted/not universally deployed? adopted? activated?

Accepted seems like an imprecise word here.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Michael Tuexen for the TSVART review.

I support Eric's DISCUSS about support for HTTP CONNECT proxies, though I think MASQUE itself is not relevant here.

Nit:
(2.1.5) s/not universally accepted/not universally deployed? adopted? activated?

Accepted seems like an imprecise word here.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S4.3

* "to listen on all IPv4 or IPv6 address." ->
  "to listen on all IPv4 or IPv6 addresses."

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-21

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address as it is only to force a reply), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Per Andersson for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus (and the discussion with TCPM) and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## No MASQUE or HTTP-proxy defined ?

This is mainly to force a discussion over email. SOCKS were (and probably are still) a common proxy mechanism, but should SSH tunnels, MASQUE connect (and its old parent HTTP connect method) be part of this document?

[Ballot comment]

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 2.1

While the text about keep-alives use cases sounds correct, I wonder whether this text is relevant in an I-D about *data models*, i.e., why discussing the semantics and use cases of TCP keep-alives?

Some issue with the use of normative language for the default values of TCP keep-alives, those values SHOULD be in NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols and not discussed in this data model. To be honest, I hesitated to raise a discuss level on this.

## Section 3.1.2.1

The reader would probably welcome an explanation of the differences between 'socks4' and 'socks4a', is it only to allow for a hostname ?

Should it be possible to configure multiple remote-addresses for the proxy ?

## Section 3.3

About the tcp-client-grouping remote-address `the IP addresses are tried according to local preference order`, should there be a reference to RFC 6724 (as there can be multiple source addresses) ?

Also in tcp-client-grouping local-address, AFAIK `INADDR6_ANY ('0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0' a.k.a. '::')` also means supporting IPv4-mapped addresses per RFC 4291. SO, the text `the server can bind to any IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, respectively ` should be amended.

## Section 4.3

Also in tcp-server-grouping local-address, AFAIK `INADDR6_ANY ('0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0' a.k.a. '::')` also means supporting IPv4-mapped addresses per RFC 4291. SO, the text `the server can bind to any IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, respectively ` should be amended.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-20. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

three new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-tcp-common
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-tcp-client
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-tcp-server
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

three new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-tcp-common
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common
Prefix: tcpcmn
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-tcp-client
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client
Prefix: tcpc
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-tcp-server
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server
Prefix: tcps
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, perander@cisco.com, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP
Servers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines three YANG 1.1 modules to support the
  configuration of TCP clients and TCP servers.  The modules include
  basic parameters of a TCP connection relevant for client or server
  applications, as well as client configuration required for traversing
  proxies.  The modules can be used either standalone or in conjunction
  with configuration of other stack protocol layers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

Shepherd:

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct link to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

Shepherd:

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuration of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.


Further manual review revealed that the document is in need of
corrections. Suggestions presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


Section 7

List informative references related to SOCKS4 and SOCKS5 protocols, i.e.
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4.protocol,
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol, RFC 1928, RFC 1929, and
RFC 2743.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

Shepherd:

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct link to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

Shepherd:

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuration of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.


Further manual review revealed that the document is in need of
corrections. Suggestions presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


Section 7

List informative references related to SOCKS4 and SOCKS5 protocols, i.e.
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4.protocol,
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol, RFC 1928, RFC 1929, and
RFC 2743.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

Shepherd:

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct links to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

Shepherd:

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuration of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.


Further manual review revealed that the document is in need of
corrections. Suggestions presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


Section 7

List informative references related to SOCKS4 and SOCKS5 protocols, i.e.
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4.protocol,
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol, RFC 1928, RFC 1929, and
RFC 2743.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

Shepherd:

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct links to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

Shepherd:

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuratanion of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.


Further manual review revealed that the document is in need of
corrections. Suggestions presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


Section 7

List informative references related to SOCKS4 and SOCKS5 protocols, i.e.
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4.protocol,
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol, RFC 1928, RFC 1929, and
RFC 2743.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct links to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuratanion of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.


Further manual review revealed that the document is in need of
corrections. Suggestions presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


Section 7

List informative references related to SOCKS4 and SOCKS5 protocols, i.e.
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4.protocol,
https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol, RFC 1928, RFC 1929, and
RFC 2743.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-13.

Review done 2022-09-30

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the
responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give
helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG [1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is
appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in
RFC 4858 [2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to
complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please
be sure to answer all of them.

Document History
----------------

1.  Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong
    concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it
    reach broad agreement?

The broader set of related drafts have been discussed extensively.

The draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server draft has had a small gathering
discussing with contributions from a few other individuals. There has
also been reviews from TCPM WG, see questions 2 and 5.

No objections for publication or other comments were raised for the
WGLC, hence the conclusion is that the WG has reached consensus.

Direct links to the NETCONF WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ov3obic-u-d0xYE581Qnd474SW8/

Direct link to the TCPM WG announcement of the above WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/6cVZTDh1QB0cxBMN1-nai6fjEok/


2.  Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
    decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:

The draft adoption was objected because the work should be done in
TCPM WG instead. This was resolved and the objectee got involved as
co-author.


3.  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.)

Shepherd:

No one threatened appeal or indicated extreme discontent.


4.  For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing
    implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as
    RFC 7942 [3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Shepherd:

The following existing implementations are known

    https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obbaa-polt-simulator

    https://github.com/CESNET/netopeer2

Other implementations or implementation plans are unknown at this point.


Additional Reviews
------------------

5.  Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies
    in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
    therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If
    yes, describe which reviews took place.

The TCPM WG has been continuously reviewing the document since it was
adopted in the NETCONF WG.


6.  Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI
    type reviews.

Shepherd:

The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the Last Call
process. Direct link to the review:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-09-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-09/

After brief discussions between reviewer and author the raised issues
were resolved by either changing or including draft content according to
YANG Doctor review. Direct link to the discussion:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BbH3yOm2xJDUfv1jN5-CvYwt88A/


7.  If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
    module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools [4]
    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 RFC 8342 [5]?

Shepherd:

The document contains three YANG modules which are well written and
follow good YANG style. All three modules have passed validation with
pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 2.0.112.

There are only whitespace and formatting issues with the models, all of
which are harmless.


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-client@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
17d15
<
27d24
<
36d32
<
114c110
<      Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
---
>        Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
122d117
<
237,241c232,235
<              presence
<                "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
<                  has been configured.  Present so that the
<                  mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
<                  this node must be configured.";
---
>              presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
>                        has been configured.  Present so that the
>                        mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
>                        this node must be configured.";
306d299
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-common@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

9d8
<
18d16
<


pyang --ietf ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang
yanglint ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang

pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 \
    ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang > new.yang \
&& diff ietf-tcp-server@2022-09-16.yang new.yang

11d10
<
21d19
<
30d27
<


The document and the three YANG models defined within comply with NMDA.
No protocol accessible "config false" nodes are defined.


8.  Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections
    of the final version of the document written in a formal language,
    such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:

The document's XML snippets have been validated with yanglint 2.0.112.


Document Shepherd Checks
------------------------

9.  Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion
    that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly
    designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
    Director?

Shepherd:

The document is needed, clearly written, complete, and correctly
designed.

However, a few comments need to be addressed before it is handed off to
the responsible Area director. See question 14 below.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter [6]. For which areas have such issues been
    identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen
    in subsequent reviews?

Shepherd:

No common issues have been identified, thus no further detailed review
is needed.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
    (Best Current Practice [7], Proposed Standard, Internet Standard [8],
    Informational, Experimental or Historic [9])? Why is this the proper
    type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
    this intent?

Shepherd:

The RFC status requested is Proposed Standard.

This is the correct RFC status because it is a standardization of the
configuratanion of, and configuration parameters needed for, TCP clients
and servers

The Datatracker correctly reflects the requested RFC status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described
    in BCP 79 [10]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
    disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
    relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages
    when applicable.

Shepherd:

No IPR disclosure have been raised in reference to this document.

The WG chair requested an IPR poll. Both authors confirmed that they are
not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
that no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to
    be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the
    front page is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:

There are two authours for this draft and no editors or contributors.

The authors have not explicitly confirmed willingness to be listed as
authors but both have been listed as draft authors since the working
group adoption and also referenced themselves as draft
authors/co-authors in discussions. Thus, they are assumed to willingly
be listed as authors.

Both authors have been actively involved draft discussions on WG list
and both also responded to the IPR poll during WGLC (direct link to the
IPR poll
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e4mExMU1gEFTf39FjuxrrZ4xFIo/).
This further implies that both authors are willingly listed as such on
this draft.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
    idnits tool [11] is not enough; please review the "Content
    Guidelines" [12] on authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current
    idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is
    underway.)

Shepherd:

I-D nits was tested against version 13 of the draft.

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC  793
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)

  -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 121 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

Three warnings target whitespace formatting of YANG tree diagrams
following the format from RFC 8340. The formatting is intentional and
can the warnings can be ignored.

The remaining warnings target old draft versions, one comment
mentions an old document date. All these are assumed to be fixed as part
of the standardization process.

Since RFC 793 was recently obsoleted by RFC 9293, this reference should
be updated.

Manual checks revealed that the document contains a superfluous section
discussing base64 encoded values, an example references an actual
registered domain, and that it also references two URIs and two YANG
modules, while in fact three URIs and YANG modules exists in the
document. Suggested corrections presented below.


Section 1.4

This section can be completely removed since no examples contain any
base64 encoded values.


Section 3.2

The value for /tcp-client/proxy-server/socks5-parameters/remote-address
is set to "proxy.my-domain.com". The domain "my-domain.com" is
registered and in use currently. Suggest to use a reserved domain, as
per RFC 6761, e.g. "proxy.example.net" to indicate that the proxy is
separate from the example.com remote-address defined in the tcp-client
container/grouping.


Section 6.1

This document registers two URIs (...)

    -> This document registers three URIs (...)


Section 6.2

This document registers two YANG (...)

    -> This document registers three YANG (...)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
    IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References [13].

Shepherd:

The references have been reviewed and all the document's references have
identified as either informative or normative.

Since ietf-crypto-types is imported by ietf-tcp-client, this reference
should be classified as normative and not informative.

All other references are correctly classified.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
    anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such
    normative references?

Shepherd:

All normative references are freely available to the public.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 [14] and
    BCP 97 [15]) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF
    registry [16]? If so, list them.

Shepherd:

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
    state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:

The ietf-crypto-types draft will be submitted to IESG for review
simultaneously as this document.

Otherwise, all normative references are published.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
    are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and
    discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to these
    other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:

The publication of this document will not change the status of any
existing RFCs.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA
    assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
    registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
    clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
    specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a
    reasonable name (see RFC 8126 [17]).

Shepherd:

The IANA Considerations section has been reviewed. The document
registers three URIs and three YANG models. (As per question 14 above,
the document at version 13 states, wrongly, that two (2) URIs and two
(2) YANG models are registered.)

All aspects of the document requiring IANA Considerations are associated
with appropriate reservations in the IANA registries.

Any referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.

Each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and reasonable names.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review
    for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert
    clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if
    appropriate.

Shepherd:

The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert review for
future allocations.


References

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4858/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7942/
[4] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8342/
[6] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[8] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[9] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[11] https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[12] https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[13] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[14] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/
[15] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[16] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
[17] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/