(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in
the title page header?
Informational as indicated on the title page.
(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:
The Babel Information Model document provides structured data elements
for a Babel implementation reporting its current state and may allow
limited configuration of some such data elements. This information
model can be used as a basis for creating data models under various
data modeling regimes.
Working Group Summary:
There was continuing active discussion and improvement to the draft
for an extended after the initial Working Group Last Call so no
consensus judgement was made for that Last call. The list of
outstanding issues was updated and then presented and reviewed at WG
meeting at a number of IETF meeting, resolving many issues. Based on
the discussions and consensus on issue resolution shown on the mailing
list and at WG meetings, after a brief call for objections at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JLunyZA9YdXXVm7S3wxGklavcCY
the draft was declared to have consensus.
Document Quality:
The draft has been extensively reviewed by the community of interest
and is of good quality.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd
Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux
(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.
Document Shepherd review at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/kgvbBpp1iCYCi6KgPx2CVLo89cs
Response, which was accepted, at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/e_bMNw7KrnnaAVQNw_sZwmskL8c
(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? If so, describe the
review that took place.
A routing review was performed. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/UKxCP97gJhjF5Rln3LXIewxX2lY
Initial response is here
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qSCbwgrnLvsx84ctJABKbEWcCjA
Note that a separate YANG Model draft is progressing and about to
enter WG Last Call. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-yang-model/
(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?
No special concerns.
(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
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mzwyXc_C-7YX_pZxy_9MDkuKQ4chttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/qUXjl_2lYNKRCqWzu74SC4gw9S0
(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 disclosures.
(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?
There was a strong consensus among the subset of WG members that are
interested in data modeling for BABEL.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
No.
(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 nits checker gives 7 warnings, all of which are false alarms. Six
cases of "weird spacing" that are OK and one regular expression
character set misinterpreted as a reference.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
No such formal review required.
(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?
There are normative references to draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis and to
the Wireshark Libpcap File Format document. The rfc6126bis draft is
through IETF last call and in the process of resolving IESG COMMENTs
and DISCUSSes. The Wireshark Libpcap File Format document is akin to a
standard of an SDO other than the IETF and is available at
https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/LibpcapFileFormat
(15) Are there downward normative 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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
(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).
This document requires no IANA actions.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations.
No IANA registries created.
(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.
There is no such formal language in the draft although there is some
programming language-like notation in the draft.