Shepherd writeup
rfc8242-23

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.  (version from 2/24/2012) 
 
(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?

Type of standard: Informational
Why:  Requirements from the I2RS WG to those wanting to create an I2RS higher-layer protocol (i.e., the netconf and netmod working groups)


(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 document describes requirements for those implementing 
   the I2RS higher-layer protocol (i.e., netconf and netmod IETF working
   groups) for functionality to support ephemeral state.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? 

This draft has been debated over the past three years, and 
at IETF 96 - netconf and i2rs WG straw-polls had no comments. 
This was included in netmod's longer discussion on operational state.

The Working group process ran from August 2 to August 15, please see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg03858.html

Conclusion of the WG LC is at: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg03984.html

Follow-up to WG LC is at: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg03989.html

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

  OpenDaylight, Juniper, and the IETF hackathon have created existing 
  pre-standard work.   This draft documents the requirements around the ephemeral state concept that is core to the functionality of I2RS.  These requirements have been discussed at netmod, netconf, and i2rs working group meetings.

No other review is needed for requirements. 

Personnel
   Document Shepherd:  Joe Clarke 
  AD: Alia Atlas 
 Working Group Chairs: Sue Hares and Russ White 
 RTG-DIR QA Reviewer: Joel Halpern 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/Jgv2VbvbUjZHUuAUMm2tiAqyKyc


(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.

1) I reviewed the document first for technical accuracy and provided comments.  Those comments were raised during in-person meetings and on the mailing list.  My final set of comments around technical accuracy were folded in to rev -18. 

2) As a shepherd, I re-reviewed the draft for readability and consistency.  As a result of that review, I passed more comments to the authors.

At this point, and after reading the working group comments, I feel this document is ready for publication. 

3) RTG-DIR QA Reviewer: Joel Halpern 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/Jgv2VbvbUjZHUuAUMm2tiAqyKyc


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None.  The document has gone through rigorous review not only in the i2rs WG but also in the netconf and netmod working groups.  It has underwent numerous revisions to address the comments that arose.  Additionally, this document has been presented and discussed at in-person meetings in i2rs, netconf and netmod working groups.  All comments have been addressed. 

(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.

Normal reviews (OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, RTG-DIR) should be sufficient. 

(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.  I did have concerns as a WG participant, and I raised them in the proper forum (meetings and mailing lists).  They were addressed by the authors and through WG discussion.

(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, each author has replied.  Please see their individual replies with the links below.

Susan Hares: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/1haO5GEtj-NF4QZeHRDMF7LG7XQ

Jeff Haas: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/SaE73bR9QbUbchgyOj6GANJXItc

(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?   

Fairly solid with discussion being continuous for 2-3 years.  
Juergen Schoenwaelder comments have been continuous in opposition,
but he did not comment during WG LC. 

(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 appeals. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Nits - nothing to mention. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

standard reviews (SEC-DIR, RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR) should be sufficient
for these requirements.  Benoit Claise should be consulted to 
determine if he feels Yang Doctors should be included. 

(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?

Normative references are either RFCs or in the process of
becoming RFCs. 

The two non-RFC normative references are:

I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements : Currently going through IESG review

I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs :  WG LC (9/23 - 10/7)

(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. 

No downward 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.  New work. 

(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).

No IANA considerations. 

(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.

No IANA registries requested. 

(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.

No additional checks for text. 
Back