Changing the Registration Policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs Registry
draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-02

1. Technical Summary
The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry,
set up by RFC 6241, has turned out to be unnecessarily strict.
This document changes that registration policy to "IETF Review",
allowing registrations from Experimental or Informational RFCs,
in addition to Standards Track RFCs.
 
This document is proposed as a BCP, which is suitable for an IANA
registration policy update.
Barry Leiba is the Document Shepherd.
Benoît Claise is the responsible Area Director.

2. Review and Consensus
This document was prompted by IESG review of an Experimental
document that asked the IESG for an exception to the registry's
policy for new registrations.  The result of discussion of that
request was to recommend that the policy be changed.  This document
makes that change.

The document has been discussed and reviewed in the NETCONF
WG, mentioned both during the IETF 94 and over the mailing list.
There was support for the change, and not a single voice against.

3. IPR
The author has confirmed full compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.  There are
no IPR disclosures related to this document.

4. Other
None.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-01.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

Upon approval, IANA will change the registration policy for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry, located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/netconf-capability-urns/

from "IETF Standards Action" to "IETF Review", and to add [ RFC-to-be ] to the registry's reference field.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

(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?

BCP, which is suitable for an IANA registration policy update.
Quoting RFC 2026: "Finally, the BCP series may be used to document
the operation of the IETF itself."

(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 registration policy for the Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF) Capability URNs registry, set up by RFC 6241, has turned
out to be unnecessarily strict.  This document changes that
registration policy to "IETF Review", allowing registrations from
certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs, in addition to Standards
Track RFCs.

Working Group Summary

The document has been discussed and reviewed in the NETCONF
WG (note that the document should have been called
draft-leiba-netconf-regpolicy-update,
as opposed to draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update).

More on the background behind this draft:
It was prompted by an Experimental document that had the following
comment during IESG evaluation:

  "The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry is
  Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does
  not meet the requirement that the registration come from a Standards
  Track RFC.  This document cannot make that registration.

  "After discussion about whether the IESG should make an exception in
  this case and allow the registration, I agree that it's the right
  thing to do for this document, so I've cleared my DISCUSS ballot on
  that point.

  "But at the same time, it seems that the registration policy is too
  strict, and should be IETF Review, which allows the NETCONF working
  group to make the decision by getting IETF consensus on the
  registration -- there's no need to specifically require a Standards
  Track RFC.  To that end, I've submitted an Internet draft,
  draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update, which I ask the Network
  Operations AD to sponsor, in coordination with the NETCONF working
  group."

Document Quality

No issue at all regarding this registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry.

Personnel

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 was reviewed, and is simple and ready to go.

(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.

No

(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(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.

Yes.

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

No IPR.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

Mentioned both during the IETF 94 and over the mailing list.
Not a single voice against the draft.

(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.

IDnits complains about the lack of distinction in the normative/informative
references, but this is an artifact of xml2rfc, and can be addressed by the RFC
Editor.

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

Not applicable.

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

All references are normative; see the IDnits note above.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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 interested community 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).

This looks good.

(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 to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Not applicable.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: bclaise@cisco.com, draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Changing the Registration Policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs Registry) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Changing the Registration Policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs
  Registry'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-21. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The registration policy for the Network Configuration Protocol
  (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry, set up by RFC 6241, has turned
  out to be unnecessarily strict.  This document changes that
  registration policy to "IETF Review", allowing registrations from
  certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs, in addition to Standards
  Track RFCs.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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?

BCP, which is suitable for an IANA registration policy update.
Quoting RFC 2026: "Finally, the BCP series may be used to document
the operation of the IETF itself."

(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 registration policy for the Network Configuration Protocol
  (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry, set up by RFC 6241, has turned
  out to be unnecessarily strict.  This document changes that
  registration policy to "IETF Review", allowing registrations from
  certain well reviewed Experimental RFCs, in addition to Standards
  Track RFCs.

Working Group Summary

  The document has been discussed and reviewed in the NETCONF
  WG (not that the document should have been called
  draft-leiba-netconf-regpolicy-update,
  as opposed to draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update).

  More on the background behind this draft:
  The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry is
  Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does
  not meet the requirement that the registration come from a Standards
  Track RFC.  This document cannot make that registration.

  After discussion about whether the IESG should make an exception in
  this case and allow the registration, I agree that it's the right
  thing to do for this document, so I've cleared my DISCUSS ballot on
  that point.

  But at the same time, it seems that the registration policy is too
  strict, and should be IETF Review, which allows the NETCONF working
  group to make the decision by getting IETF consensus on the
  registration -- there's no need to specifically require a Standards
  Track RFC.  To that end, I've submitted an Internet draft,
  draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update, which I ask the Network
  Operations AD to sponsor, in coordination with the NETCONF working
  group.


Document Quality

  Not issue at all regarding this registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry

Personnel

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

  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.

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

  No

(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

(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.

  Not applicable

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

  No IPR.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  Mentioned both during the IETF 94 and over the mailing list.
  Not a single voice against the draft.

(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.

  One complain about the lack of distinction in the normative/informative
  references.

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

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

  To be corrected.

(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?

  No

(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.

  No

(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 interested community 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).

  This looks good.

(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.

  No.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  Not applicable.