Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang-13.txt
> 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 CCAMP working group is a relatively small group, so counting numbers
can be misleading.
In addition to the five authors there are nine contributors.
The thread for WGLC can be seen in the archive at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/1uDs4SszXnIn2QgEnDUJiemrKc4/
This thread brought in comments from another three participants.
17 people represents a significant proportion of the active working
group.
This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.
> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there
> decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.
There was some debate about the use of 'when' clauses within
augmentations. This appears to have been successfully resolved.
There was also some concern arising from an example depicted in the
ITU-T's G.694.1. The resolution, however, appears to be that this is
just an example and not intended to force the specification or
implementation.
Everything seems to be resolved with consensus.
> 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 appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.
> 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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
No one has reported any implementations.
However, many of the authors and contributors are working with hardware
implementations or lab trials of hardware that delivers the connectivity
function that this YANG module is intended to manage, so we may assume
that they are close to the technical issues.
Two Europe-based research projects (see Section 11) have worked toward
YANG-based management of optical equipment that uses the flexi-grid
approach and have prototyped early versions of this draft.
> 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
> external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
No cross-review seems necessary.
> 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.
The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.
A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.
> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
> the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
> tools 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?
The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.
The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.
> 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, ASN.1 modules, etc.
The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.
> 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?
The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during its
development within the working group and again during WGLC. The authors
addressed all of the points raised.
The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.
> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
> their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
> merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?
I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).
> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
> (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
> type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect
> this intent?
This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.
The document reflects this status correctly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.
> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
> appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
> been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
> and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
> disclosures, including links to relevant emails.
The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.
The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2021-11-25
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/qVssE0UiELEbsliq1v6NKTXcauc/
Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received
and are tracked in the Datatracker History tab on 2021-07-21
The mail to the list, by its existence, drew the attention of all
mailing list participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it
did not explicitly request conformance.
> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
> is greater than 5, please provide a justification.
There are five authors on the front page and nine further contributors.
Each is well aware that they are named (through the IPR poll) and none
has objected.
> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
> tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
> Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
> please review the entire guidelines document.
idnits runs clean
I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.
I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
implementation status to report.
> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?
Seems to be the right split.
> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to
> anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any
> such normative references?
All normative references are freely available.
> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
> 97)? If so, list them.
No Downrefs
> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
> what is the plan for their completion?
None such
> 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 change to any existing RFCs
> 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).
The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is
> 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 required