> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Proposed Standard
> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Document describes how an implementation my use TE information and does
not define any protocol related formats and behaviors.
> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Yes.
>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
>
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.
This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one
submodule. Together they form the core routing data model which
serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing
subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by
additional YANG modules defining data models for control plane
protocols, route filters and other functions. The core routing data
model provides common building blocks for such extensions -- routes,
routing information bases (RIB), and control plane protocols.
> Working Group Summary
>
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?
This document has been discussed for a very long time within the
WG. At this point it has received extensive reviews and has solid
consensus behind it. One notable objection can be found [1]. Some of
the points are raised and are in the rough, others are addressed in
other ways.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16705.html
>
> Document Quality
>
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?
This set of documents received extensive review within the working
group and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design
choices. The document has been reviewed by Martin Bjorklund, who
is also a YANG doctor. Since the document is heavily touching on
routing, specific review was requested (by a previous chair) and lead to
a number of changes and another co-author being added to the document.
Multiple implementations are reportedly underway.
> Personnel
>
> Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger
> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Benoit Claise
>
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of an extended
WG last calls. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for
publication.
>
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.
> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization?
A final formal YANG Dr review could be requested,
> If so, describe the review that took place.
As described above, several reviews from the routing area were
solicitated during the development of the document.
w>
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.
This publication request was delayed a bit due to the Shepherd
considering the impact of the so called OpState discussion and the
potential impact of the results expected from the Revised
Datastore Design Team. Specifically consideration included the
potential for waiting for a full "OpState" solution or revising
the model to facilitate future refactoring/revision. Based on
input from the authors, the AD, the co-chair, and the DS design
team the model is being published as is - which is aligned with
the -state convention found in [RFC7223].
>
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes, see thread at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16626.html
>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
No IPR disclosed.
> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Good consensus after significant review.
> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No threats, but the notable exception indicated by [1].
>
> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.
The document passes ID nits.
>
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
A previous chair had the document reviewed by a YANG Dr. an
additional formal review could be requested by the AD if he so desires.
> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?
Yes.
> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.
No.
> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.
> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is
appropriate.
> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
None.
> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
In addition, the document was also validated without model issues via
http://www.yangvalidator.com/