YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT)
draft-ietf-rift-yang-10

# Document Shepherd Writeup
## Jordan Head
## June 7th, 2022

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This documents consensus reached broad agreement from the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversial discussions.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 threads of appeal or extreme discontent were noted in WG discussions.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is not a protocol document.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

All necessary reviews have taken place, nothing further is required.

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

YANG Doctors reviewed a previous version (-03) of this document as "Almost Ready".

Current version addresses all concerns mentioned in that review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

YANG validation was run with 0 warnings and 0 errors.

The YANG modules complies with the NMDA architecture per RFC8342.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains a YANG module and was successfully validated by datatracker's automatic YANG validation tool.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is certainly needed to programmatically describe RIFT's configuration and operational state.

There was active participation from the working group both in terms of comments and detailed review/editing to get the YANG module where it is now. This includes individuals from at least 2 separate implementations of the protocol being described (RIFT).

This document is complete, any and all concerns have been addressed, and is ready to move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

I have no concerns with this document based on the Routing Area's list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This draft is intended to move forward as an Internet Standard and is correctly documented as such.

With multiple implementations of the protocol it describes (RIFT) it is the correct type of publication.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

No IPRs were disclosed for this document and all authors have stated this during last call.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes.

This document has 5 authors, there is no need for more to be listed.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

- There is 1 instance of exceeding the character limit of 72 (by 2), but this is syntactically relevant to the YANG module contained in the draft.

- There are 3 instances of "weird spacing", but this is syntactically relevant to the YANG module contained in the draft.

- There is 1 instance of a "possible downref", but the is an IEEE standard that is both relevant to the document and freely available.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No, all references are complete and correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No. The main RIFT specification is currently progressing through AD review.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

The document makes multiple registry requests:

- A new URI from the IETF XML Registry (RFC3688/BCP81).
- A new YANG module name from the YANG Module Names Registry (RFC6020).

All IANA registry requests in the document are associated with the correct IANA registries and conform to their respective procedures.

All necessary IANA regristry's are correctly referenced in the "IANA Considerations" section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are being requested.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

# Document Shepherd Writeup
## Jordan Head
## June 7th, 2022

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This documents consensus reached broad agreement from the working group.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversial discussions.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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 threads of appeal or extreme discontent were noted in WG discussions.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is not a protocol document.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

All necessary reviews have taken place, nothing further is required.

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

YANG Doctors reviewed a previous version (-03) of this document as "Almost Ready".

Current version addresses all concerns mentioned in that review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

YANG validation was run with 0 warnings and 0 errors.

The YANG modules complies with the NMDA architecture per RFC8342.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The document contains a YANG module and was successfully validated by datatracker's automatic YANG validation tool.

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The document is certainly needed to programmatically describe RIFT's configuration and operational state.

There was active participation from the working group both in terms of comments and detailed review/editing to get the YANG module where it is now. This includes individuals from at least 2 separate implementations of the protocol being described (RIFT).

This document is complete, any and all concerns have been addressed, and is ready to move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

I have no concerns with this document based on the Routing Area's list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This draft is intended to move forward as an Internet Standard and is correctly documented as such.

With multiple implementations of the protocol it describes (RIFT) it is the correct type of publication.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

No IPRs were disclosed for this document and all authors have stated this during last call.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes.

This document has 5 authors, there is no need for more to be listed.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

- There is 1 instance of exceeding the character limit of 72 (by 2), but this is syntactically relevant to the YANG module contained in the draft.

- There are 3 instances of "weird spacing", but this is syntactically relevant to the YANG module contained in the draft.

- There is 1 instance of a "possible downref", but the is an IEEE standard that is both relevant to the document and freely available.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No, all references are complete and correct.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No. The main RIFT specification is currently progressing through AD review.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No, this document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

The document makes multiple registry requests:

- A new URI from the IETF XML Registry (RFC3688/BCP81).
- A new YANG module name from the YANG Module Names Registry (RFC6020).

All IANA registry requests in the document are associated with the correct IANA registries and conform to their respective procedures.

All necessary IANA regristry's are correctly referenced in the "IANA Considerations" section.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are being requested.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html