# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang
## 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 document has 5 co-authors and 3 additional contributors. It represents a
significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes
for broad consensus.
Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (three of them being
authors/contributors), with just one comment (WG last call can be found in the
archive at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUVBpUPnwZspJhDtn-WMaKiglk4/).
There was no objection to publication.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
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)?
The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been
reported.
## 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 YANG data model defined in the document describes Layer 1 connectivity
services with UNI access type and is consistent with the Service Attributes
defined in [MEF63], with the exception of the Service Level Specification
Service Attributes which are ouside the scope of this document. Proper
references are included in the document. No external review is 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.
YANGDOCTORS last call review ready with nits.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.
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.
None applicable.
## 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?
Yes. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.
The YANG model defined can be utilized by a customer network controller to
either initiate a connectivity service request or to retrieve service states
for a Layer 1 network controller communicating with its customer network
controller. From that perspective the model is useful and assist on the
automation of operations at Layer 1.
The document is ready to hand off to the AD.
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?
No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.
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?
This document is the product of the CCAMP WG and is presented for publication
as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.
The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.
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.
The WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an
email to the CCAMP mailing list at the time of WG last call. Responses from all
of the authors can be seen on the CCAMP mailing list at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MAra7x0UuvAturtBCjWG3HsL5S8/ and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/N2WZU57DjH70am454or2rSed8-c/
No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be
disclosed.
The CCAMP mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time,
but no responses were received.
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.
No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long
time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR
poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the
document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.
Number of authors and editors on the front page is five.
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.)
id-nits reveals some lines (8) with weird spacing.
Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The distribution seems to be right.
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.
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.
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?
One of the normative references, [I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types], is ready to be
submitted to the IESG. The CCAMP chairs are waiting for an update to the OTN
topology to move them together as a cluster, but if it will take too long,
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-layer1-types] will be progressed independently.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No.
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]).
The document makes requests to IANA (an URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the
"IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] and YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
No new registries.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/