Shepherd writeup

This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for: 

A YANG Data Model for NTP

Prepared by: Dieter Sibold,  11 August 2020  

(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

This is a YANG data model for NTP. As such it provides configuration of NTP instances and provides information of about running state of NTP implementations

(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 YANG data model for Network Time Protocol (NTP) implementations.  The data model includes configuration data and state data.

Working Group Summary:

The document has working group consensus for publication. It has been reviewed by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item. It has received review from YANG experts. 

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? 


Document Quality:

This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its development. Version 03 have been submitted for a YANGDOCTOR Early review. The overall result was "Almost Ready". The findings of the review have been considered by the authors and incorporated into subsequent versions of the draft.

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, YANG 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? 

There are no existing implementations of this YANG module. According to the authors implementations are currently planned. A YANGDOCTORS review was requested prior to WGLC in order to enhance the review process with the opinion of an YANG expert. 


Dieter Sibold is acting as the Document Shepherd.  Erik Kline 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 has followed the working group process and reviewed the final document and feels this document is more than ready for IESG review.

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

The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were 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. 

This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during the IESG review process. 

(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 is comfortable 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?

There are no IPR filings on this document. The document shepherd has received confirmation from all the authors that they are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures. 

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

There is no IPR disclosures for this document. 

(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? 

The document represents consensus of the working group. Note that the members of the working group are not YANG experts. For that reason the YANGDOCTORS Early review was requested.

(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.) 

There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

The Document shepherd run ID nits. Findings: there are currently six warnings about weird spacings. These can be fixed during subsequent iterations of the document.

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

The version 03 of the document has been submitted for YANGDOCTORS Early Review. It past the review with the result "Almost Ready". The review may be accessed via:
Issues revealed by this review have been addressed by the authors.

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

All references are tagged as normative and informative references.

(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? 

All normative references are completed.

(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. 

(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. 

This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. 

(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 8126). 

The document requires the registration of a URI in the "IETF XML Registry". Additionally, it registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry. All the actions specified are consistent with the document and reasonably specified.

(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. 


(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, YANG modules, etc.

The documents contains a YANG module. This was successfully validated by datatracker's automatic YANG Validation. 

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools ( for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

The document contains the YANG module "ietf-ntp". This module have been successfully validated by the pyang tool at 2020-07-13. See:
Compliance to RFC8342: The YANG module comply with RFC8342.