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.
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?
Standards Track.
(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
This document defines a collection of YANG definitions for
configuring SNMP engines.
The configuration data model in particular targets SNMP deployments
where SNMP runs in read-only mode and NETCONF is used to configure
the SNMP agent. Nevertheless, the data model has been designed to
allow implementations that support write access both via SNMP and
NETCONF in order to interwork with SNMP-managed management
applications manipulating SNMP agent configuration using SNMP.
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?
This document is a NETMOD Working Group document, adopted in
2012-06-05. This document WG last call was completed on
Dec 20, 2013. A number of comments were posted to the list
and addressed in revision -04 of the draft. This version of the
draft was reviewed by the WG chairs. We believe that it is now
stable and complete.
Document Quality
I polled the WG and NuDesign Technologies and Tail-F responded
indicating they have implementations of the MIB and have provided their
feedback. A few other people indicated they have or plan to implement
the module, but did not want to be named or give details.
Martin and Jürgen are key Yang Doctors and provided sigifnicant review of
the document as it progressed. Benoit felt that this was significant
and thorough enough review to count as a Yang Doctor review.
Personnel
Document Shepherd: Thomas Nadeau (tnadeau@lucidvision.com)
Area Director: Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com)
The Document Shepherd did a full review of the text of version 04 of the
draft as did a numebr of WG members. The document shepherd has also
scanned through the mail archives and previous IETF meeting minutes to
review debates on the draft. The document shepher also conducted an
informal poll of the NetMod WG on Feb 25, 2014 asking if all WG LC
comments had been addressed. I received no comments. The document
shepherd's view is that this is now ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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.
(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. I polled all authors on Feb 25, 2014 and received responses from each
indicating no IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
I polled the WG for IPR, and received replies from all co-authors indicating no
IPR claims. There are no IPR claims listed.
(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 has been one WG last call on this document. Considerable progress and
contribution to the document has been made since its initial version. After
the WG last call on version 03 some relatively minor changes were made in
accordance to several LC comments. There were no comments received on the list
after version 04 was published, nor where there any objections to moving the
draft forward. I did a subsequent mini-poll the week of Feb 25, 2014 to check
if all WG LC comments were addressed, and received no comments.
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There are none.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Martin and Jürgen are key Yang Doctors and provided significant review of
the document as it progressed. Benoit felt that this was significant
and thorough enough review to count as a Yang Doctor review.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
The document registers YANG modules in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC6020].
The document registers YANG submodules in the YANG
Module Names registry [RFC6020].
(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.
It does not create any 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.
The module contained within document has been parsed by pyang, tail-f's tools.