Shepherd writeup
rfc8340-06

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?

The proposed status is 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

   This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module Tree
   Diagrams.  The purpose of the document is to provide a single
   location for this definition.  This syntax may be updated from time
   to time based on the evolution of the YANG language.

Working Group Summary

Yang tree diagrams are perhaps unusually for yang not 
intended specifically to be machine readable, but rather 
to display with  maximum legibility spinlified graphical 
representations of modules. the dicussion that led to the 
current formulation is therefore somewhat unusual territory
for netmod. Nevertheless, the current approach has broad
working-group support.

Document Quality

There are known implementations of yang tree-diagram 
rendering which produce results consistent with this document.

Personnel

Joel Jaeggli is the document shepherd. 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 shephard has performed a close reading of the document.

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

The document shepherd has no particular concerns regarding the review
depth of of the document. Interestingly enough there does not appear 
to be much reason to perform yang doctor review on this document as it
has neither a model nor interoperability or architecture considerations
for yang embedded within the work.

(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.

(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 are present.

(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 shepherd is not aware of any IPR or IPR claims having been made.
The history on the document shows the question having been asked of 
authors and the working group.

(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 claim have been files.

(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?   

WGLC, showed solid consensus for publication. minor changes were made
to address last call comments these are visible in draft 04/05 diffs

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt

(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 appeal is 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
thorough.

IDNITs complains about white space in one diagram, given the complexity
and the fact that legibility is the intended goal this is expected.

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

Theoretically this would be reviewed by yang doctors but as noted
that review may be of limited value. there are no yang validation
reviews required.

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

Informative references are identified. No normative references appear
to be required.

(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?

ietf-netmod-schema-mount
ietf-rtgwg-ni-model

are hopefully completed soon as well.

(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. 

none are required.

(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 additional RFCs are modified by this document.

(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).

No considerations are required of IANA.

(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 are required.

(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 formal code validation is required.

Back