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 1 November 2019.
This write-up is based on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22.
(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?
The RFC requested is Proposed Standard. And, this is appropriate for this
document as it defines YANG modules for the configuration and management of
DHCPv6 elements for use in NETCONF and RESTCONF.
(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:
This memo describes YANG data modules for the configuration and
management of DHCPv6 (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6)
servers, relays, and clients.
Working Group Summary:
This document had review for the DHC Working Group, in particular Tom Petch
has reviewed several versions of this document during the process. Most of
the discussion was about how to break up the modules to work for client,
server, and relay. Tom did several passes on the document during the
process.
Document Quality:
The document was reviewed by a couple of members of the DHC working group.
It was also sent to a YANG Doctor (Acee Lindem) for early review. During
the YANG Review, the document was marked an On the Right Track. The authors
have implemented the changes recommended by the review, with some additional
comments from DHC Working Group members.
Implementations of the DHCPv6 client module are available at:
https://github.com/telekom/sysrepo-plugin-interfaces/tree/dhcpv6-client
Server (based on the modules from -12 of the draft):
https://github.com/telekom/dt-kea-netconf
Personnel:
Timothy Winters is the Document Shepherd, Éric Vyncke is the Responsible
Area Director.
(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.
As document shepherd, I reviewed this document to assure that it is
following the WG consensus and discussions and is of good quality. In my
opinion, the 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. The document had review in DHC group and was also reviewed during the
yang early review process. There was good discussion between a member of DHC
and the authors of the document on use cases.
(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.
Yes this document received an YANG doctor early review which helped correct
some default settings and corrected several minor issues.
(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.
I have no concerns or issues with any of the material.
(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, the authors confirmed all the IPR disclosures requirements.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/4AsYOwIHx9L3JaNz6rF_v5LqzFA/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No, there is no IPR filed against this document and hence there was no IPR
discussion in the WG.
(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?
This document had strong review by the few individuals that were involved
in needing YANG models for DHCP deployments. The silent members of the
working group understood the need for YANG model for describing DHCP
functions, but weren't interested in participating in the process. There
was no indication that anyone disagreed with any of the material.
(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.
(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.
Ran the ID nits, it only commented on potential white space issues that
were in the yang models, so no issues. Read the document and didn't find
any errors or formatting issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document had an early Yang doctor review.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-19-yangdoctors-early-lindem-2021-05-05/
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, every reference that I located had a valid reference.
(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.
There are no downward normative references.
(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 8126).
This document has a IANA considerations sections, that updated the proper
registries for both YANG and XML.
(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.
N/A
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by those Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
Yang Validation runs without any issues on 2021-09-13.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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
RFC8342?
It did run with the YANG validation tool and no issues were uncovered. Yes it
complies with RFC8342.