Shepherd writeup

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?

draft-mm-netconf-time-capability seeks experimental status. One complicating 
factor, which required considerations is the standards action required for 
allocation of  resources from the netconf capabilities registration.

(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 capability-based extension to the Network
   Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) that allows time-triggered
   configuration and management operations. This extension allows
   NETCONF clients to invoke configuration updates according to
   scheduled times, and allows NETCONF servers to attach timestamps to
   the data they send to NETCONF clients.

 Working Group Summary

The document was proposed for consideration as a netconf working-group 
item. ultimately it was not adopted as such. with the blessing of the the ADs
it was forwarded to the ISE however, the requirements for allocation for the 
netconf registry required standards action. The decision was made to AD 
sponsor the draft recognizing that a number of participants in the discussion
felt that the proposed  capabilities had merit even the to proposal itself 
wasn't ready for the standards track. This required a standards action, 4 week 
last call and a number of solicited reviews in order to insure that we were not
wildly off base.

 Document Quality

There were some significant variance of opinion on which 6142 operations 
are valid for timing. one vantage point is that potentially you only care about 
timing get operations. Another more common view is that with the exception
of a few which make no sense timing is applicable to most of the operations.
the proposed set hews to the later vantange point. it is possible that 
experimentation will refine the use cases more succintly.


Joel Jaeggli is the sponsoring AD and Shepherd.

(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.

It's my view that this document is ready for publication the updated 
draft 07 addresses comments made during IETF last call.

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

No serious concerns remain. It is my belief that if this facilty proves
useful that the netfconf working group will revisit the subject at an 
appropriate time.

(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.

NETCONF specific review was obtained on this document.

(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.

No special considerations beyond those described in the current 
document announcement remain.

(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.

Authors have confirmed that no IPR disclosures are required.

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

Consensus at last call was judged to be favorable. Tehre was concern
expressed by some working group participants that the WG had declined 
to take on this work and that the standards track was therefore not 
appropriate, it was not proposed after the WG discussion as a standards 
track document.

(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 appeals seem likely.

(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

(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?

(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?

(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. 

(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.

(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).

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