Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for A YANG Data Model for Optical
Transport Network Topology (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16).
**Current version 6 March 2023**
## 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?
DK>> The document has five authors, and 11 contributors. This represents a
significant slice of active CCAMP participants.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents
of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14.
The English required cleaning up, this has been performed and readability
suggestions have been provided to the authors.
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.)
DK>> 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations.
## 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.
DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required.
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.
DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR
Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed.
During Last Call, there was a suggestion to improve the YANG tree descriptions.
This continues to be an ongoing discussion between the authors and YANG expert,
some key references needing updating to ensure their dates were accurate - the
current status of this conversation
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CbXlOieebaefZVn2NnL_ppIVbeI/.
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]?
DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
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.
DK>> 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?
DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during the
Last Call process and several suggestions were made. The Authors have addressed
most of the issues in the latest version (v16). An outstanding issue is the
lack of URLs to publically available documents for several Normative, and one
Informative, non-IETF references. These include: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754],
IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709], [MEF63] and [ITU-T_G.Sup43].
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?
DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues
to be a general issue.
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?
DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a
DK>> Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of
maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected 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.
DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang. The IPR declaration collection was successfully
completed on 22 August, 2022.
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.
DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are
tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front
page does not exceed 5.
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.)
DK>> The idnits tool has no errors, 4 warnings and 2 comments. The
DK>> Shepherd
has provided some suggestions to address these minor issues.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
DK>> All normative references are freely available.
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.
DK>> No.
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?
DK>> No.
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.
DK>> 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]).
DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It
references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation
policies for those registries.
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.
DK>> No new registries required.
[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-refe
rences/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/