# Document Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-core-yang-sid-pen
Document status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-yang-sid-pen/
Document Shepherd: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Area Director: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
## Document Summary
Through IANA actions, this document allocates ranges of YANG Schema Item
iDentifiers (YANG SIDs) for certain current or future holders of
IANA-registered Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs). It builds on allocation
mechanisms defined in RFC 9595.
Based on a DISCUSS ballot and the discussion at the IESG Telechat on
2025-12-18, the originally intended RFC status Informational changed to
Proposed Standard and a new IETF Last Call was requested.
## 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 WG has reached broad agreement and strong consensus on this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There has been no controversy during the development of this document.
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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
Not applicable, since this is not a protocol document.
### 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.
This document solidly builds on concepts and mechanisms also developed in
the same Working Group CoRE (see RFC 9254 and RFC 9595). Careful
consideration, feedback, and reviews have beeen provided by Working Group
participants, including co-authors of the above mentioned specifications.
Reviews from other IETF Working Groups or external organizations have not
been deemed 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.
Not applicable.
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?
Not applicable.
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.
Not 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?
The Shepherd fully supports the document and believes it to be ready.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and
addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
None of the common issues from the IETF areas has been identified as
applicable to this document.
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?
Publication of the document was requested with intended RFC status
Informational. The Working Group deemed it to be sufficient for the intent
of the document, namely allocating ranges of YANG SIDs and specifically
allocating SID mega-ranges as per RFC 9595, together with considerations
that put such allocations in context.
Based on a DISCUSS ballot, the discussion at the IESG Telechat on
2025-12-18 concluded that some ADs are uncomfortable seeing such a large
allocation happen in an Informational document. Consequently, the intended
RFC status was changed to Proposed Standard and a new IETF Last Call was
requested.
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
Each author has stated that they do not have direct, personal knowledge of
any IPR related to this document. The Shepherd is not aware of any IPR
either, and no IPR discussion about this document has occurred in the CoRE
WG.
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.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
The two comments raised by idnits tool can be safely ignored:
* "Duplicate reference: RFC9595, mentioned in 'RFC9595', was also mentioned
in 'RFC9254'." does not seem to match with the content of the document.
* In Section 3, the reference to RFC 1065 (and not to RFC 1155 obsoleting
it) is intentional, in order to confirm to the largest extent that "PENs
have been around for decades".
The document complies with the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
References are listed in the appropriate category.
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 the normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that
are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.
This document does not include any such normative reference.
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?
This document does not include any such normative reference.
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).
The IANA considerations in Section 4 are about the requested allocations of
SID mega-ranges, as per RFC 9595. These considerations are exhaustive, and
they are supported by clarifications on the expected technical capacity for
sustained operations in the involved IANA registries.
Before IETF 124, version -02 of the document received an early review from
IANA, asking to include the requested registrations to the YANG-SID
Mega-Ranges also as a table. This request was addressed in version -03 of
the document.
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.
Not applicable.