As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
The document requests 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 a mechanism to add the schema trees defined by
a set of YANG modules onto a mount point defined in the schema tree
in some YANG module.
Working Group Summary
Draft-08 of Schema mount was polled for WG consensus on Nov 7 2017.
While consensus was rough it seemed at the time sufficient to proceed.
subsequent discussion while producing 09 to address WGLC concerns
revealed signficant divisions on whether to include support for YL-bis,
as well as how to address NMDA considerations. Work at IETF 101
produced a compromise in the form of draft 09 and 10 which the
working group appears to be substantially happier with.
We believe that normative references to this document that were stable with
draft 08 should remain so.
Vendor support and commitment is a signficant part of needing to advance
schema mount at this time.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Joel Jaeggli is the Document Shepherd, Ignas Bogdonas is the responsible
(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 document shardherd has preformed a review of all versions from 08-10
and believes this document is ready for IETF last call. The yang model itself
is subject to formal review methods which have been exercised several times.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The document Shepherd has the concern that the current document while
quite mature represents a recent compromise. While it has substantially
more support than previously it is nonetheless a newer document. Because
documents currently in the RFC editor queue or in various forms of
publication state depend on this document it needs to reviewed in light of
those dependencies. see:
(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
Yes, we are hopeful that IETF last call will offer the opportunity for
participants outside of netmod with dependencies on this document
to weigh in on the suitability of the final version to their needs,
(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
No specific concerns are present with draft 10.
(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.
IPR confirmation was performed with the WG and Authors with each WGLC.
The shepherd is not aware of any 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
There are no 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?
Draft-10 has an appreciably better wg consensus then draft-08.
(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 immediately 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
IDNITS checks are clean for this document. the wierd spacing noted is ascii-
art for the datamodel.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The yang doctors have reviewed this document.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
Normative references to drafts documents are present we believe that
the timeline for completion of publication will allow those documents
to be published. e.g. draft-nmdsdt-netconf-rfc7895bis which is already
being processed by the IESG.
(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.
There are no Downrefs that need to be called out.
(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 status of other documents is not changed by this one.
(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).
This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is
requested to be made.
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
reference: RFC XXXX
(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 such registries are created.
(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 yang module as currently written validates via: