Shepherd writeup
rfc7950-14

Benoit's note: the following URL https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12.txt might help for your review.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  Proposed Standard (Standards Track indicated on the title page)

(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

  YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
  state data, remote procedure calls, and notifications for network
  management protocols like the Network Configuration Protocol
  (NETCONF). This document defines YANG version 1.1.

Working Group Summary

  This is an update of YANG 1.0 as defined in RFC 6020. The working
  group used an issue tracker and a number of virtual interim meetings
  to discuss all bug fix proposals and feature requests. The document
  went through two WG last calls and there is broad consensus on the
  final version.

Document Quality

  Recent versions of the open source pyang implementation support this
  specification. Additional commercial implementations are expected to
  follow soon.

Personnel

  Juergen Schoenwaelder is the document shepherd and Benoit Claise 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 has carefully reviewed the specification
  during WG last call and subsequently checked all diffs. The document
  believes that 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 shepherd has no concerns about the depth and breadth of the
  reviews 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 internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  The does not seem to require such a specific review from a broader
  perspective since it is an incremental update to YANG 1.1 which does
  not change the usage of XML and it does not touch on protocols such
  as AAA, DNS, DHCP.

(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 shepherd does not have any concerns about 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.

  The WG was asked to report any IPR disclosures in December 2015 and
  nothing was reported. The document editor reported that he is not aware
  of any IPR related to this 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

(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 solid consensus of all people who have contributed to the
  YANG 1.1 effort.

(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

(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.

  None found (idnits seems to generate a few false positives)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  The document does not define a data model nor does it allocate new
  media types and URI types.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes

(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. The normative reference to draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 is
  not an issue since this document is sent to the IESG at the same
  time as this document.

(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.

  The document has normative references to three W3C specifications
  that are believed to be stable (and that have been there also in
  YANG 1.0 [RFC 6020]).

(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. YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] is not expected to change its status since
  there are data models on the standards-track that conform to YANG
  1.0. YANG 1.0 may be considered for retirement once all data models
  have naturally been updated to a future version of YANG.

(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 continues to use the YANG 1.0 IANA allocations made in
  RFC 6020. There is one new NETCONF capability allocation in this
  document, which has been verified to be complete.
  
(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.

  None

(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 ABNF has been checked against Bill Fenner's bap ABNF tool
  (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi). Since bap does not
  yet support RFC 7405 (case sensitive strings), it was necessary
  to replace the '%s' notation for keywords with ''.
Back