As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This is a standards track document requesting the status of proposed standard.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
This document defines an RPC operation to compare management datastores that comply with the (NMDA) Network Management Datastore Architecture architecture.
Working Group Summary:
NMDA diff attracted as significant amount of discussion due to the utility of being able to compare two datastores. As a result of this effort we believe that the working group connesenus reflects broad support for the current draft.
The Document has been fairly widely reviewed. we believe that Yang Doctor review, to be requested at the time of publication requested will constitute additional review.
Joel Jaeggli is the Shepherd Robert Wilton is the responsible AD
(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 reviewed draft 03 at the time of WG LC, and draft 04 changes reflecting WG consensus during last call.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns about quality of document are currently present.
(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.
(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.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
The WG chair confirms that, netmod adoption and WG LC IPR solicitations have been made. The WG chair is not aware of any IPR claims that have resulted from these requests.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
The shepherd is not aware of any IPR claims.
(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 is in favor of advancing this document as the facility is necessary.
(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 currently anticipated.
(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.
Nits complains about the formatting of one line with the yang datamodel. it's cosmetic.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document is submitted to yang doctors.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Normative and informative references are correctly identified.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
The document is ready to advance.
(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.
normative references are to proposed standard / Standard and BCP documents.
(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.
The document does not request status changes for existing documents.
(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 8126).
This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry line 621-625
621 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
623 Registrant Contact: The IESG.
625 XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry line 633-637
633 name: ietf-nmda-compare
635 namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
637 prefix: cp
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
Basic yang validation passes.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?