(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 draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-05 is requesting Standards Track status.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
This document provides for the association of tags with YANG modules.
The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and
organize modules. A method for defining, reading and writing a
modules tags is provided. Tags may be standardized and assigned
during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically
defined and set by users. This document provides guidance to future
model writers and, as such, this document updates RFC 8407.
Working Group Summary
The working group had significant questions on how module tags might be
used. Section 1.1 of draft 05 dwells on how and why tags are applied,
addressing significant points in this discussion from the vantage-point
of working-group participants.
Document Quality
The document has received signficant review, including vigorous working-
group debate that resulted in draft-03/04. Yang-doctors review of the WG
consensus draft-04 was completed.
Personnel
Joel Jaeggli is the document shepherd Ignas Bogdonas is the responsible
area director.
(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.
This version has been reviewed by the document shepherd. As WG co-chair
I have been shepherding this document through the working group process
up to this point as well. I believe that it is ready for IETF last call IESG
review and publications.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No specific concerns are present at this time. The working-group last call
process for this draft was iterative, consensus has gradually become less
rough.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
Yang module tags are a facility which is potentially employed by all
consumers of yang modules. While netmod is central to protocol
maintenance and more or less all yang implementors are represented
there consumers (operators) of the technology present at the IETF may
have limited exposure prior to IETF last call. IETF LC is therefore
important for the review process.
(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 not specific concerns 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.
Chairs have requested positive confirmation of IPR status per NETMOD
operating procedure and have concluded that there are no acknowledged
IPR claims on the document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No such IPR has been files.
(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?
WG consensus was arrived at as a result of vigorous debate, was
revisited at 103 and subsequently confirmed on the mailing list.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/UsuQJY9uscKGa35Bgy8LwvhRDyY
(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 appeals are anticipated.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Notable nits:
Appearance of the lack of security considerations
As with rfc 8047. there are no meaningful security implications to
imposing a structure on the documentation system for yang modules.
As with rfc 8407
"This document defines documentation guidelines for NETCONF or
RESTCONF content defined with the YANG data modeling language;
therefore, it does not introduce any new or increased security risks
into the management system."
Updates line needs to be changed from RFC8407 to 8407. This nit
accumulated since the draft referenced has exited the RFC editor queue.
the meaning is unambiguous.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Draft-04 was been submitted for yang doctors review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
All references are normatively or informatively referenced.
(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?
No references are in this state since the publication of RFC 8407.
(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.
RFC 8199 and 8407 are downward references to informational documents.
They describe variously consistent terminology for the classification of yang
modules and Guidelines for yang module authors. It is the belief of the shepherd
that these two downward references should be noted in the IETF last call but
are otherwise not exceptional.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
This document proposes to update RFC 8407 as noted in section 7.1 by creating
a standard tag.
(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 document proposes in Section 8 to create:
A module tag prefix registry consisting of at present three types of module
tags.
A IETF module tag registry with a pre-populated list of module tags.
(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.
Additions to the module tag prefix registry are specification required.
Additions to the IETF tag registry require IETF consensus.
(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.
No automated checks are required. Appendix A contains a fictional example
result of a query from a module tag registry. It has been sanity checked and
has been updated due to comments in the yang doctors review.