Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-07

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 1 November 2019.

<AC> Write-up filled out by Alexander Clemm.  Responses delimited with AC in pointy brackets. </AC>

(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? 

<AC> Informational </AC> 

(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. 

<AC> The document articulates a framework for the use of network telemetry for purposes of operations and management.  The framework accommodates various techniques for the generation of telemetry data by the network and for the collection and consumption of that data by applications.  It distinguishes between separate modules includig for control plane, forwarding plane, and management plane telemetry and lays out a common component structure for those modules. Interfaces are described and existing IETF techniques are mapped to the framework. The framework and the taxonomy that it contains is intended to provide a common ground and serve as guidance for the development and application of corresponding techniques and standards.  
</AC>

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? 

<AC> There was no major controversy. The author accommodated the various points that were raised thoughout the process, as far as I can tell to everyone's satisfaction. There are no open issues. </AC>

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, 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? 

<AC> The document does not describe a protocol.  What is described is a framework.  Similar frameworks will in fact already be deployed. However, the contribution of the document is that it articulates the "best practices" for such frameworks, that it provides a systemic mapping of how various existing techniques relate to it, that it provides a common taxonomy, that it helps to organize related efforts. There have also been contributions to the document by operators.  YANG Doctors etc were not applicable here. </AC>  

Personnel:

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

<AC> Document Shepherd: Alexander Clemm. Area Director: Robert Wilton. 

Please note that the document shepherd is also a contributor to the document.  In case this is of concern, I am okay with having my name removed. </AC>

(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. 

<AC> Since having been appointed as document shepherd when the document was in -05, already after WG review.  I have put the document through two additional thorough rounds of reviews.  The current revision, -07, addresses all comments to my satisfaction. In my opinion the document is ready for publication.  

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

<AC> No concerns. </AC>

(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. 

<AC> I do not think further review or additional perspectives are necessary. </AC>

(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. 

<AC> My concerns/comments have been addressed to my satisfaction.  I believe the document can can be advanced. </AC>

(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?

<AC> Yes.  All authors and contributors have indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. </AC>

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

<AC> No </AC>

(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? 

<AC> The consensus is solid and the WG agrees.  In addition, the document has also a broad set of contributors (from a broad set of organizations). </AC>

(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.) 

<AC> Not that I am aware of. </AC>

(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. 

<AC> There are no issues.  However, there are a few references that need to be updated for publication: 

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out has been published
     as RFC 8671

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
     draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
     draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
     draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions-02

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
     draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-08
     
</AC>

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

<AC> None of these criteria apply.  </AC>

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

<AC> Yes.  All references are informative, also reflecting the "Informational" status of the draft. </AC>

(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? 

<AC> No </AC>

(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. 

<AC> No </AC>

(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. 

<AC> No </AC>

(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). 

<AC> This document contains no request to IANA and no registries are involved, hence this is not applicable </AC>

(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. 

<AC> The document contains no request to IANA, hence this is not applicable </AC>

(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.

<AC> Not applicable </AC>

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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?

<AC> Not applicable </AC>
Back