As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
(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 presenting in the correct format / convention to be considered an RFC. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.
(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:
The document sets out to provide clarification around the complex issues surrounding terminology for the intended and applied configuration as relating to the operational state of a device. For some time the exact definition of the terms surrounding configuration for operational state (OpState) have been recently debated. This created the requirement for this draft, as a document to clarify what the terms defined within it should be taken to mean. The result of this draft is other drafts now have a reference point on which to base their language/definitions.
Working Group Summary:
Background on this draft: the draft “Consistent Modeling of Operational State Data in YANG” draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-00 (now expired) proposed a solution on how to model the operational states. This draft generated a lot of discussion. Much of the discussions (we even had dedicated virtual meetings on the topic) was around terminology and the problem requirements. Two different solutions to this problem (or a similar problem) have been proposed in the meantime. At that point, the AD asked the two chairs to summarize and document the agreed requirements. In the end, there was a willingness to publish this document.
This document is a NETMOD Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the working group through 4 iterations and via interim meetings. Recently the last few iterations distilled the references, grammar and other issues, and these where discussed fully and in a lively manner at the interim meetings. The draft has made quick progress as the issue of terminational and its definition was an urgent matter to be resolved.
The document provides a clear and concise descriptions for the terms it addresses, which was its aim. As an informational draft there is no protocol to implement.
Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (email@example.com)
Area Director: Benoit Claise (firstname.lastname@example.org)
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full review of the last 3 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the draft was -04 focusing on clearer definitions in the areas of Backwards Compatibility, general Requirements and tighter definition of Asynchronous Configuration Operation. With the help of the interim meetings general consensus was achieved and it is regarded that this document can now proceed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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 internationalisation? 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.
No specific concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, for the authors.
The acknowledgments section says: “The authors would like to thank the following for contributing to this document”. “contributing” might be ambitious. Anyway people in that list have mentioned no IPR. After, an IPR on a requirement document doesn’t make much sense…
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarise any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be that it is ready to move to RFC as an informational document.
(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.)
(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.
Only a minor formatting issue found “ It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 5 form feeds but 15 pages” which can be address with the editors
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.
(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
No - all normative references are upward.
(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 - no impact on status of 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 is consistent with the body of the
document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to
create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters registry.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new 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.
No sections written in a formal language.