YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document.

I have one point that I would like to discuss related to the following text:

"The local address must use the same address family as the configured remote address."

Should that be the BCP14 keyword MUST? Also, I don't see anything on these lines in the model itself and I am wondering how this constraint/check gets conveyed to those that will use/import this module.

[Ballot comment]
I have an editorial comment - please consider moving examples into the appendix. I am not sure if there is convention/guidance on this topic but I remember seeing documents where all examples were place in the appendix.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Section 2.3

The description of remote-address says the information is cached (which is OK) but is unclear about "still valid", i.e., I would expect that a change in the network connection (e.g., Wi-Fi to cellular or Wi-Fi roaming) can change the connectivity (single stack to dual stack), or the 'closest' CDN cache. I.e., either simplify the description or extend it

```
"The IP address or hostname of the remote UDP server.
        If a domain name is configured, then the name resolution
        should happen before each datagram is sent, unless a
        previously resolved address is cached and still valid.";
```

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Local-address description

Is there any reason why the descriptions of `local-address` are different between the UDP client and UDP server modules ?

### Section 3.3

`To configure listening on all IPv6 addresses the value must be '::' (INADDR6_ANY)."`, AFAIK, for many OS stacks, listening to "::/0" is also listening to IPv6-mapped IPv4 address, e.g., a server will gladly accept IPv4 connections over this IPv6 socket, using ::ffff:192.0.0.2

[Ballot comment]
Hi Alex, Pierre, and Kent,

Thank you for the effort put not into this specification.

I only reviewed the changes since the last time I reviewed the doc. Please find below some minor comments:

# RFC6991bis

CURRENT:
  This module imports types defined in [RFC6991].
  ..
  The "ietf-udp-server" imports types defined in [RFC6991].

I see that draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis is about to be published as (RFC-to-be 9911). The RFC Editor is likely to ask whether we replace RFC6991 with RFC9911. You may consider adding a note about this.

# RFC8407bis IETF Template

Please replace this part in both modules as follows:

CURRENT:
      This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
      (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
      for full legal notices.";

NEW:
        All revisions of IETF and IANA published modules can be found
        at the YANG Parameters registry group
        (https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
        the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

# The grouping can be used for state retrieval as well

CURRENT:
  This YANG module defines the "udp-server" grouping for configuring
  UDP servers.

You may s/configuring/managing or the like.

Please consider a generic wording in the description clause of the module as well.

# The module does not define any data node, so reasoning about configuration is not adequate here. You have it right in the preamble of 3.1 or Section 2, BTW.

Please consider:

OLD:
  Section 3.1 provides an overview of the YANG module for configuring
  UDP servers.

NEW :
  Section 3.1 provides an overview of the "ietf-udp-server" YANG module.

# Tree Diagram

CURRENT:
7.1.  Normative References

  …

  [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              .

Please move this one to be listed as informative per 8407bis:

  If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the
  YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document.
  Refer to Section 2.2 of [RFC8349] for an example of such a reference.

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-udp-client
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-client
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-udp-server
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-server
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-udp-client
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-client
Prefix: udpc
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-udp-server
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-server
Prefix: udps
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-12-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP
Servers'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-12-03. 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


  This document defines two YANG 1.1 modules with reusable groupings
  for managing UDP clients and UDP servers.

Notes to the RFC editor

  This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

  Please replace "RFC XXXX" with the assigned RFC number prior to
  publication.  Note that there are also several occurrences of "RFC
  XXXX" in the YANG modules.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

CHAIR UPDATE: Issues raised in the YANG Doctor review have been addressed
by the authors.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hiQafjwsumyTTyMJGWNE5Qe45Xs/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/z44RV_A7dfzdHtw0mwUAWTK843s/


Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team review"

CHAIR UPDATE: UDP multicast client issue was raised in YANG Doctor
review but TSVART review didn't find any issues regarding this.


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard

“This is the proper type for a document that specifies a data model that is
meant to ease interoperability between management entities.”


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

CHAIR UPDATE: Issues raised in the YANG Doctor review have been addressed
by the authors.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hiQafjwsumyTTyMJGWNE5Qe45Xs/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/z44RV_A7dfzdHtw0mwUAWTK843s/


Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team review"

CHAIR UPDATE: UDP multicast client issue was raised in YANG Doctor
review but TSVART review didn't find any issues regarding this.


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard

“This is the proper type for a document that specifies a data model that is
meant to ease interoperability between management entities.”


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

CHAIR UPDATE: Issues raised in the YANG Doctor have been addressed by the
authors.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hiQafjwsumyTTyMJGWNE5Qe45Xs/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/z44RV_A7dfzdHtw0mwUAWTK843s/


Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team 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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard

“This is the proper type for a document that specifies a data model that is
meant to ease interoperability between management entities.”


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team 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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard

“This is the proper type for a document that specifies a data model that is
meant to ease interoperability between management entities.”


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team 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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document would benefit from a YANG Doctor and possibly also from a
Transport Area Review Team review.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared by a "Transport Area
Review Team 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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After in section 2 described discussion and the early YANG doctor review in
section 6 has been addressed and cleared, the document is ready to be handed
over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


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

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever leaf local-port in ietf-udp-server should
be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643


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


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)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document would benefit from a YANG Doctor and possibly also from a
Transport Area Review Team review.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared by a "Transport Area
Review Team 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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After in section 2 described discussion and the early YANG doctor review in
section 6 has been addressed and cleared, the document is ready to be handed
over to the responsible Area Director.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Internet Standard


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. 3 authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


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

None applicable.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None applicable.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised.


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][11]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/