(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. YANG model for a standards track protocol. The type is
indicated.
(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
The document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage
Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery
(MLD) devices.
Working Group Summary
The draft has authors from five different vendors and has been extensively
discussed by a multicast YANG design team formed by the working group. More
than five implementations were considered to come up with a common model. There
were only two responses to the working last call, both supporting the document,
but given that five different vendors have been involved and the document has
been thoroughly reviewed by the design team, we believe this is sufficient.
Document Quality
There are no known implementations, but vendors have implemented pim YANG
models that have some overlap with this model. Five vendors have been working
on this model, but we do not know what their implementation plans might be. In
addition to thorough review within the design team, the shepherd and at least
one other working group participant has reviewed the document. It has also been
reviewed by a YANG doctor. Since the YANG doctor review, the document has been
changed to support NMDA. A new review should be done to ensure there are no
issues.
Personnel
Document Shepherd Stig Venaas
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
(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 shepherd reviewed the document twice, once after adoption, and again as
part of working group last call. No major issues found. The issues were
addressed.
(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.
YANG doctor review was done previously, but should be done again of the latest
revision.
(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 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.
All authors have stated that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No
(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?
It is strong concurrence by the authors and a few other individuals. A handful
of people supported going to working group last call, but only two people apart
from the five authors have actively supported the document. The rest of the
group is silent, but it is difficult to get the majority of the group to review
YANG models.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
There are only minor issues. Mostly about unused or missing references, these
are trivial to fix. One concern is a normative downward references.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The YANG modules validate. A YANG doctor has reviewed a previous version. We
would like a new 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?
There are normative references to the following drafts. Also two of them are
informational.
draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelinesdraft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bisdraft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bisdraft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bisdraft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis
(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 downward normative references to
draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelinesdraft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis
(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 document needs a new URI in the IETF XML registry and an update in the YANG
Module Names registry. No new registries.
(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.
(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 modules validate.