(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The RFC being requested in a Proposed Standard, and is indicated as such on the title page header. It is a Proposed Standard, as the document defines how a device can securely boot when placed in a private or a public network.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
This draft presents a technique to securely provision a networking device when it is booting in a factory-default state. Variations in the solution enables it to be used on both public and private networks. The provisioning steps are able to update the boot image, commit an initial configuration, and execute arbitrary scripts to address auxiliary needs. The updated device is subsequently able to establish secure connections with other systems. For instance, a device may establish NETCONF (RFC 6241) and/or RESTCONF (RFC 8040) connections with deployment-specific network management systems.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
There was nothing about the draft and the discussions around it that are particularly contentious or controversial. The author(s) were fairly deliberate with their discussions and the decisions, making sure that the WG was comfortable with what was being proposed.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
A couple of vendors have indicated a desire to implement if not implemented them. The document has been reviewed extensively by Martin Bjorklund, and changes suggested by him have been incorporated into the draft.
The draft was reviewed by YANG doctors, and the comments from that review were also incorporated into the draft.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible AD is Ignas Bagdonas.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed this document, posted the comments from that review on the WG mailing list, and the comments from that review were incorporated in the -24 version of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breath of reviews. Plenty of people have reviewed and provided detailed comments on the draft.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
The document has been reviewed by SecDir and comments from that review have been incorporated into the document.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The Document Shepherd has no concerns or issues with the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Each one of the authors have confirmed all appropriate IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
An IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document. There was no discussion regarding the IPR disclosure.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is broad consensus within the WG for this document. The draft has been discussed and updates provided over a three year period, with several people reviewing and commenting on the draft.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No one has threatened, appealed or otherwise indicated extreme discontent with the draft.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
A run of idnits did not reveal anything that was concerning. The 6 warnings and 3 comments are expected, and have to do with the inclusion of the YANG model tree diagram.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document was submitted and reviewed by a YANG doctor.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes, all the references in the document have been identified as normative or informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
There is one normative reference to draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext that is "work in progress". The NETMOD WG has not indicated a firm date of when it thinks the document would be completed.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
Idnits indicates that one of the documents is downref, but it is a Non-RFC.
Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.X690.2015'
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No, the publication of this document will not the change the status of any existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA considerations section has been well written with four different IANA requests. All the requests are well documented and registries and their references pointed out.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
There are no new IANA registries being requested by the document. All the requests are for existing registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The Document Shepherd has run tools like pyang for validating the models and idnits for validating the draft itself.