Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netmod-system-config

# 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? Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial. This being that the current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the <system> datastore and merge it with the <running> datastore. However, the WG noted that trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and architecturally unsound. 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.) Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. 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)? Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but I am unaware of any implementations yet. ## 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. Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (NMDA), which this document updates, if approved. As such, this document does not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and thus only internal reviews are needed. 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. Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago. The YANG module published by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a new NMDA datastore called "system". I am a YANG Doctor too. 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]? Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE` produced differences: some valid, some questionable. For the valid issues: - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character. - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop. - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters. - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement. For questionable issues: - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines. 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. Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors. ## 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? Shepherd: I just re-read the document. It is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved, but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 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? Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas. 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? Shepherd: Proposed 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. Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY 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. Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied. The document has three 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.) Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15], nothing else seems wrong. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative, per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040] should moved to Informative for the same reason. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? Shepherd: There are none. 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. Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of. 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? Shepherd: There are none. 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. Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated. It is listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction. 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]). Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate. 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. Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries. [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/ 

Back