Shepherd writeup

Template date: 2/24/2012
Date of Shepherd report: 12/31/2015 
Next update expected on: 1/6/2016 
Reviews pending:  QA-Routing, QA-Security Directorate 
Shepherd:  Jeff Haas 

Type of RFC:  Standards document 
This document is part of a series of documents that specify requirements for an I2RS protocol. 
If possible, the I2RS protocol is to be created as an amalgamation of existing protocols that
can be combined to create the architecture described in the I2RS architecture document. 

For example, the I2RS protocol could be be compromised of configuration and notification 
from NETCONF/RESTConf) and an analytical protocol (e.g. IPFix).

The requirements for the first version of I2RS are: 
1) model driven ephemeral state - that is data models that do not survive
    a software or hardware reboot.

2) a secure protocol -

3) traceability - ability to record interactions between I2RS elements 
(Client, Agent, Routing system)

4) notification publication via subscription

5) Protocol to pass Data for Analytical applications   
The first version of these requirements does not include a 
separate analytical protocol requirements as the simple use cases may
pass information via query/poll or the notifications. 

The I2RS protocol exists in an secure environment described by:

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

Technical Summary
  This presents security-related requirements for the I2RS protocol for
   mutual authentication, transport protocols, data transfer and

Working Group Summary
Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015 

Document Quality

This draft comes out of discussion with the I2RS WG and
various security experts, and security directorate reviewers. 
The last SEC-DIR messages on this topic was:
last message: 

It has been reviewed by the NETCONF WG (July 2015, Nov 2015), and
all issues were declared resolved as of November 2015. 

Routing QA review has been requested, but not assigned. 
 A significant number of vendors have indicated their plan to 
 expand existing protocols to create an IRS amalgamate protocol. 
 A list includes the following: Cisco, Juniper, Huawei, Ericsson, 
Google, Packetdesign (Client software) and others. 

ID-NITS: none 


Document shepherd:  Jeff Haas 
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
Authors: Susan Hares, Daniel Migault, and Joel Halpern
AD: Alia Atlas 
Sec-DIR QA-Reviewer: Russ Housley
 RTG-DIR QA-Reviewer: TBD 

(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.

3-a: Shepherd's report: 
(Put in Mail list for review send to list) 

3-b: Routing-QA Review: 
(Put in Mail list pointer for QA-Review) 

3-c: Sec-DIR QA Review

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

Shepherd is satisfied with depth of reviews

Final reviews from Security Directorate and OPS-DIR should be done on all
5 documents in the requirements suite. 

(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.

Early SEC-DIR and OPS-DIR reviews were done on the I2RS architecture and
problem statement that form the basis for the 5 requirement documents. 
Early SEC-DIR reviewers were done on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-00.txt

Final reviews from Security Directorate and OPS-DIR should be done on all
5 documents in the requirements suite. 

(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? 

No specific concerns or issues on this document. 

(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.

IPR reference for three authors: 
Susan Hares (

Daniel Migault (

Joel Halpern

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR

No IPR disclosure 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  

Solid full WG agreement and discussion for 5 months (June to November 2015). 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 

No Appeals. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

No NITS Are indicated. 

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

Requirements document does not require MIB, Yang validation or URI reviews. 

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.  All references are appropriate. 

(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?

All normative references are coming as part of the 
bundle with problem statement, architecture, and 
protocol requirements.  

(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. 

Architecture is a downref, but it is part of the cluster of drafts 
that includes: problem statement, architecture, and requirements.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?  
No RFC changed.   This is 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

No requests of IANA are made since this is a requirements document. 

(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 registries are created or referenced. 

(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.

ID-NITS done.  No XML, BNF, MIB or Yang so no validation required.