Shepherd writeup
rfc8407-20

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? 

BCP

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. 


   This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of Standards
   Track specifications containing YANG data model modules.  Applicable
   portions may be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model
   documents.  Recommendations and procedures are defined, which are
   intended to increase interoperability and usability of Network
   Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) and RESTCONF protocol
   implementations that utilize YANG data model modules.  This document
   obsoletes RFC 6087.

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? 

   Consensus was reached among all interested parties before 
   requesting the publication of this document.


Document Quality:

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? 

   Multiple implementers of YANG and those who write
   models using YANG have reviewed the document.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? 

   Kent Watsen is the Document Shepherd for this document?  
   Benoit Claise 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. 

The Document Shepherd went through the checklist listed here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No concerns


(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. 

No portions of the document have been flagged as needing to be reviewed
from a particular or broader perspective.


(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 specific concerns or issues with this 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 author has confirmed that there is no IPR to be filed for this draft.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

No IPR disclosure have been filed.


(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? 

Strong support by many individuals.


(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 an appeal otherwise indicated extreme discontent.


(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. 

Following are non-issues found by idnits:

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

    NO ONE COULD FIND AN ERROR BEFORE, BUT NOT I THINK I SEE THAT THE ISSUE
    IS THAT IT"S MISSING "NOT RECOMMENDED" IN THE LIST.  I DON'T BELIEVE
    THAT IT'S WORTH ASKING FOR AN UPDATE TO FIX IT PRIOR TO BEING SUBMITTED,
    AS IT CAN BE FIXED IN THE NEXT UPDATE, OR DURING AUTH48. 

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.

    THERE ARE 156 "--" IN THE DRAFT, NONE OF WHICH SHOULD BE WRAPPED BY
    '<CODE BEGINS>' and '<CODE ENDS>' lines.

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 2502, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

    THIS APPEARS TO BE AN IDNITS BUG.  THE REFERENCE IS CLEARLY VISIBLE
    IN THE APPENDIX, AND EVEN HYPERLINKS TO THE RIGHT SPOT IN THE
    REFERENCES SECTION.


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

This document does not define any artifacts needing formal reviews.


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

Yes, all references have been partitioned into these two groupings.  


(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 are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state.


(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

There are no downward references.


(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. 

Publication of this document will obsolete RFC 6087.
There is a "Changes Since RFC 6087" section in the Introduction.


(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 draft does not define any new registries.  This draft doesn't does move an RFC 6087 registration to this draft.


(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. 

This document does not define any new IANA 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 shepherd validated both YANG examples (ietf-foo.yang and ietf-template.yang) using the `pyang` tool with the "--ietf" flag set.



Back