Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-09

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.

The comments below are from my initial ballot. I think you've probably addressed most of them, but I am leaving them for reference:

- General: I support Stephen's DISCUSS

-2.2: What is the real scope of this work? Is it expected to supplant the mentioned mechanisms?

- 2.3: "We need a new pub-sub
  technology"
The shepherd write up mentioned a goal to use existing technologies. Is the point of this sentence to suggest that is not feasible?

- 4.1, 4th paragraph:
The MAY doesn't seem right--is this a statement of fact that the subscriber may have to resubscribe, or a requirement of the form that the service MAY force the subscriber to resubscribe? (Be careful with MAYs in requirements language--they imply unexpected things. For example, several requirements say a SUBSCRIBE MAY do something--do those imply that the service MUST allow the subscriber to do it ?)

-- 4.2.2, third bullet: The previous section said dampening periods MUST be supported.

- 4.2.1, third paragraph: This is a bit ambiguous. I think it means to change the what subtrees the subscription applies to, but could be interpreted to change the subtrees themselves.

- 4.2.6.4: Would a mechanism that allowed out-of-order delivery but gave the subscriber a way to reconstruct the order fulfill this requirement?

Nits:
- The shepherd write up suggests this is standards track. The draft and tracker both say informational. Please update the shepherd writ up.

-3, last paragraph: What's the difference between a "Push" and an "Update"?

-4.1: A forward reference to the subscription QoS section would be helpful.

-- Last paragraph, last sentence: Sentence doesn't parse.


- 4.2.8, third paragraph: I don't think that should be a 2119 MAY

[Ballot discuss]

(Checked this vs. -08 of the draft and we still need to chat
about it I think.)

I have what I hope are two very easily sorted things that
I'd like to chat about:

(1) 4.2.5, para2: Hang on - this is 2016 isn't it? :-) Why
would we ever have a pub/sub service whose subscribers can
pretend to be the service?

(2) Don't you need a statement somewhere that commensurate
security needs to be provided for pushed notifications as
was used for the original subscription? That might be a
little hard to phrase correctly but I hope we agree that
the notifications ought not be significantly less secure
than the subscription.

[Ballot discuss]
I have a couple of points I would like to discuss. Hopefully they can be resolved easily:

Are there really no requirements for privacy or integrity protection? Is there an expectation that this mechanism would ever carry privacy sensitive or otherwise sensitive information?

- 4.2.5, 2nd to last paragraph:
I am surprised to find that, when the receiver is not the subscriber, that the receiver is expected to opt-out. It seems like some form of opt-in or affirmative consent would be needed here.

[Ballot comment]
- General: I support Stephen's DISCUSS

-2.2: What is the real scope of this work? Is it expected to supplant the mentioned mechanisms?

- 2.3: "We need a new pub-sub
  technology"
The shepherd write up mentioned a goal to use existing technologies. Is the point of this sentence to suggest that is not feasible?

- 4.1, 4th paragraph:
The MAY doesn't seem right--is this a statement of fact that the subscriber may have to resubscribe, or a requirement of the form that the service MAY force the subscriber to resubscribe? (Be careful with MAYs in requirements language--they imply unexpected things. For example, several requirements say a SUBSCRIBE MAY do something--do those imply that the service MUST allow the subscriber to do it ?)

-- 4.2.2, third bullet: The previous section said dampening periods MUST be supported.

- 4.2.1, third paragraph: This is a bit ambiguous. I think it means to change the what subtrees the subscription applies to, but could be interpreted to change the subtrees themselves.

- 4.2.6.4: Would a mechanism that allowed out-of-order delivery but gave the subscriber a way to reconstruct the order fulfill this requirement?

Nits:
- The shepherd write up suggests this is standards track. The draft and tracker both say informational. Please update the shepherd writ up.

-3, last paragraph: What's the difference between a "Push" and an "Update"?

-4.1: A forward reference to the subscription QoS section would be helpful.

-- Last paragraph, last sentence: Sentence doesn't parse.


- 4.2.8, third paragraph: I don't think that should be a 2119 MAY

[Ballot discuss]

I have what I hope are two very easily sorted things that
I'd like to chat about:

(1) 4.2.5, para2: Hang on - this is 2016 isn't it? :-) Why
would we ever have a pub/sub service whose subscribers can
pretend to be the service?

(2) Don't you need a statement somewhere that commensurate
security needs to be provided for pushed notifications as
was used for the original subscription? That might be a
little hard to phrase correctly but I hope we agree that
the notifications ought not be significantly less secure
than the subscription.

[Ballot comment]

- I wondered if this was maybe of interest to more than
just i2rs, and if so, whether any effort had been made to
try figure out if these requirements work for folks who
don't care about i2rs? It'd seem a shame to work on this
but stop one step short of being appropriately general.
(But you probably already checked that I guess.)

- 4.2.2, last para: The MUST here seems like it may be
quite onerous, in general. Did someone think all of that
through? For example, what if the reason for declining is
that the Subscriber doesn't have sufficient privilege?
Saying what privilege is needed would be a breach of
least-privilege. Transient errors may also make this very
hard to do well. I'd suggest s/MUST/MAY/ and to also turn
the information returned into a hint and not a promise.

- 4.2.5, para 1: saying there "MUST be mutual
authentication" is odd - the usual terms would be "MUST
implement" or "MUST use" which of those does "MUST be"
mean?

- 4.2.8: when you say fetch... by whom? Is there an
implicit requirement in the title of the subsection?

[Ballot discuss]
Three DISCUSS points, which could be easily resolved IMO.

1. As mentioned on the NETMOD mailing list by Tom Petch, don't redefine the YANG datastore term:
> I see that the definition of 'datastores' has cropped up in this AD
> Review, as in the e-mail below.
>
> Meanwhile, draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-05.txt is in IETF Last
> Call and redefines, or recreates, the term for us
>
>    A YANG datastore is a conceptual datastore that contains hierarchical
>    data defined in YANG data models.  It is what is referred in existing
>    RFCs as "NETCONF datastore".  However, as the same datastore is no
>    longer tied to NETCONF as a specific transport, the term "YANG
>    datastore" is deemed more appropriate.
>
> I think that the concept of datastore has been troublesome to those
> coming to YANG lately, such as openconfig and I2RS, and that this will
> just muddy the waters more, especially as it is tucked away in an
> Informational document.  If I2RS want to define such terminology, then
> it should be in the I2RS Architecture or some such; but IMHO they should
> not be defining YANG datastores at all.

2. Maybe I read too much into this (at the time of specifying the operational state in NETMOD) ...

  A Subscription Service MUST be able support a Subtree Filter so that
  subscribed updates under a target node might publish only operational
  data, only configuration data, or both.

Proposal: s/Subtree Filter/Filter

3. In the security considerations section

  Versioning MUST be supported.

Versioning of what? Yang push protocol, subscription, transport session, state of of subscription, something else?

[Ballot comment]
- Editorial
  Based on
  current I2RS requirements, NETCONF should the initially supported
  transport based on the need for connection-oriented/unicast
  communication.

s/should/should be

- Editorial:
  A Subscription MAY include filters as defined

s/filters/Filters

Note: there are multiple instances of filter -> Filter

- AND is not a RFC2119 keyword
  For "on-change" notifications, passing
  through the Filter requires that a subscribed object is now different
  that from the previous Push, AND at least one of the YANG objects
  being evaluated has changed since the last Update.

-
I always wonder what a MAY requirement means? Example:

  A Subscriber MAY check with a Subscription Service to validate the
  existence and monitored subtrees of a Subscription.

Or:
  A Subscription Service MAY send Updates over Best Effort and Reliable
  transports.

What if  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/ doesn't address this requirement (I haven't checked), are we good or not?

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: i2rs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Interface to the Routing System
WG (i2rs) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides requirements for a service that allows client
  applications to subscribe to updates of a YANG datastore.  Based on
  criteria negotiated as part of a subscription, updates will be pushed
  to targeted recipients.  Such a capability eliminates the need for
  periodic polling of YANG datastores by applications and fills a
  functional gap in existing YANG transports (i.e.  Netconf and
  Restconf).  Such a service can be summarized as a "pub/sub" service
  for YANG datastore updates.  Beyond a set of basic requirements for
  the service, various refinements are addressed.  These refinements
  include: periodicity of object updates, filtering out of objects
  underneath a requested a subtree, and delivery QoS guarantees.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Template date: 2/24/2012
Date of Shepherd report: 1/4/2016

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.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/). 

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. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/

2) a secure protocol -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements/

3) traceability - ability to record interactions between I2RS elements
(Client, Agent, Routing system)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

4) notification publication via subscription
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

5) Protocol to pass Data for Analytics 
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs/

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. 

Technical Summary

  This document provides requirements for a service that allows client
  applications to subscribe to updates of a YANG datastore.  Based on
  criteria negotiated as part of a subscription, updates will be pushed
  to targeted recipients.  Such a capability eliminates the need for
  periodic polling of YANG datastores by applications and fills a
  functional gap in existing YANG transports (i.e.  Netconf and
  Restconf).  Such a service can be summarized as a "pub/sub" service
  for YANG datastore updates.  Beyond a set of basic requirements for
  the service, various refinements are addressed.  These refinements
  include: periodicity of object updates, filtering out of objects
  underneath a requested a subtree, and delivery QoS guarantees.

Working Group Summary
Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done on individual draft 5/26/2015 to 6/9/2015
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015

Document Quality

  This draft is comes out of the work with Open Daylight Project
  and other implementations of early prototype implementations of I2RS protocol.

  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.

  Reviews of the requirement package deeply looked in t the 
  The NETCONF reviewed the traceability document and found no additional
  requirements for the NETCONF or RESTCONF suite. 

  The security directorate QA review found that traceability did not by itself
  provide security's level of assurance or tracing.  Traceability  was targeted for logging
  information that adds to data assurance or tracing. 

  Routing QA review is pending.

Personnel
Document shepherd:  Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD: Alia Atlas

(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.

Technical and editorial reviews were done at June and December.
Shepherd's report is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/diCAuZlY0cG8pW1k9E-6kil-0Tc

All issues in shepherd's report have been addressed by:
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-04

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

Shephered is satisfied with QA-reviews performed to date, but
AD has indicated that a RTG-QA review is necessary prior to AD evaluation.

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

NETCONF WG reviewers (July and November 2015) understood this requirement,
and accepted the yang push technical description as a NETCONF WG document:
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/)

Other protocols included in an I2RS amalgamated protocol will need to develop
similar mechanisms so this requirement document is necessary.

(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 NETCONF reviews were done.

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:
Eric Voit (evoit@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/xsoSTNZz8xihKU6IPbar0_gDVXw

Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/0UwXWFMKbi2ddaCscqLvl7XwSAw
[In June]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/XdLV7CAz2vPvSwV577oPR6O5VL8

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

(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 disclosure

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

Solid full WG agreement and discussion.
NETCONF has adopted a technology draft based on the requirements.

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

No Appeal. Everyone really likes this draft.

(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 are mentioned in:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=Shepherd&email_list=i2rs&qdr=w

(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?

All references are appropriate. 
Shepherd has request authors to update draft to include RFC2119, and
place draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture and draft-i2rs-traceability. 

(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
5 protocol requirements documents.

(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.

The following two drafts in normative are associated with the I2RS initial bundle
of architecture, problem, and requirement drafts.
These will be resolved as bundle is approved.

  [i2rs-arch]
              Atlas, A., "An Architecture for the Interface to the
              Routing System", December 2015,
              .

  [i2rs-traceability]
              Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
              the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
              Information Model", December 2015,
              .

(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
document. 

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.

Template date: 2/24/2012
Date of Shepherd report: 1/4/2016

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.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/). 

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. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/

2) a secure protocol -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements/

3) traceability - ability to record interactions between I2RS elements
(Client, Agent, Routing system)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

4) notification publication via subscription
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

5) Protocol to pass Data for Analytics 
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs/

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. 

Technical Summary

  This document provides requirements for a service that allows client
  applications to subscribe to updates of a YANG datastore.  Based on
  criteria negotiated as part of a subscription, updates will be pushed
  to targeted recipients.  Such a capability eliminates the need for
  periodic polling of YANG datastores by applications and fills a
  functional gap in existing YANG transports (i.e.  Netconf and
  Restconf).  Such a service can be summarized as a "pub/sub" service
  for YANG datastore updates.  Beyond a set of basic requirements for
  the service, various refinements are addressed.  These refinements
  include: periodicity of object updates, filtering out of objects
  underneath a requested a subtree, and delivery QoS guarantees.

Working Group Summary
Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done on individual draft 5/26/2015 to 6/9/2015
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015

Document Quality

  This draft is comes out of the work with Open Daylight Project
  and other implementations of early prototype implementations of I2RS protocol.

  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.

  Reviews of the requirement package deeply looked in t the 
  The NETCONF reviewed the traceability document and found no additional
  requirements for the NETCONF or RESTCONF suite. 

  The security directorate QA review found that traceability did not by itself
  provide security's level of assurance or tracing.  Traceability  was targeted for logging
  information that adds to data assurance or tracing. 

  Routing QA review is pending.

Personnel
Document shepherd:  Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD: Alia Atlas

(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.

Technical and editorial reviews were done at June and December.
Shepherd's report is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/diCAuZlY0cG8pW1k9E-6kil-0Tc

All issues in shepherd's report have been addressed by:
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-04

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

Shephered is satisfied with QA-reviews performed to date, but
AD has indicated that a RTG-QA review is necessary prior to AD evaluation.

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

NETCONF WG reviewers (July and November 2015) understood this requirement,
and accepted the yang push technical description as a NETCONF WG document:
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/)

Other protocols included in an I2RS amalgamated protocol will need to develop
similar mechanisms so this requirement document is necessary.

(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 NETCONF reviews were done.

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:
Eric Voit (evoit@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/xsoSTNZz8xihKU6IPbar0_gDVXw

Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/0UwXWFMKbi2ddaCscqLvl7XwSAw
[In June]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/XdLV7CAz2vPvSwV577oPR6O5VL8

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

(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 disclosure

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

Solid full WG agreement and discussion.
NETCONF has adopted a technology draft based on the requirements.

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

No Appeal. Everyone really likes this draft.

(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 are mentioned in:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=Shepherd&email_list=i2rs&qdr=w

(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?

All references are appropriate. 
Shepherd has request authors to update draft to include RFC2119, and
place draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture and draft-i2rs-traceability. 

(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
5 protocol requirements documents.

(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.

The following two drafts in normative are associated with the I2RS initial bundle
of architecture, problem, and requirement drafts.
These will be resolved as bundle is approved.

  [i2rs-arch]
              Atlas, A., "An Architecture for the Interface to the
              Routing System", December 2015,
              .

  [i2rs-traceability]
              Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
              the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
              Information Model", December 2015,
              .

(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
document. 

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.

Template date: 2/24/2012
Date of Shepherd report: 12/31/2015
Next update expected on: 1/6/2016

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.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/). 

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. 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/

2) a secure protocol -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements/

3) traceability - ability to record interactions between I2RS elements
(Client, Agent, Routing system)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/

4) notification publication via subscription
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements/

5) Protocol to pass Data for Analytics 
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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs/

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. 

Technical Summary

  This document provides requirements for a service that allows client
  applications to subscribe to updates of a YANG datastore.  Based on
  criteria negotiated as part of a subscription, updates will be pushed
  to targeted recipients.  Such a capability eliminates the need for
  periodic polling of YANG datastores by applications and fills a
  functional gap in existing YANG transports (i.e.  Netconf and
  Restconf).  Such a service can be summarized as a "pub/sub" service
  for YANG datastore updates.  Beyond a set of basic requirements for
  the service, various refinements are addressed.  These refinements
  include: periodicity of object updates, filtering out of objects
  underneath a requested a subtree, and delivery QoS guarantees.

Working Group Summary
Working consensus for requirements was honed over 6 months (May -Nov 2015).
WG LC done on individual draft 5/26/2015 to 6/9/2015
WG LC done with All of requirement drafts 10/6/2015 to 10/20/2015

Document Quality

  This draft is comes out of the work with Open Daylight Project
  and other implementations of early prototype implementations of I2RS protocol.

  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.

  Reviews of the requirement package deeply looked in t the 
  The NETCONF reviewed the traceability document and found no additional
  requirements for the NETCONF or RESTCONF suite. 

  The security directorate QA review found that traceability did not by itself
  provide security's level of assurance or tracing.  Traceability  was targeted for logging
  information that adds to data assurance or tracing. 

  Routing QA review as been assigned to Jamal Salim.

Personnel
Document shepherd:  Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Susan Hares and Jeff Haas
AD: Alia Atlas

(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.

Technical and editorial reviews were done at June and December.
Shepherd's report is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/diCAuZlY0cG8pW1k9E-6kil-0Tc

Document needs to be updated to address ID-NITS
(email : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/OlzoBiSKj0NRoI-D86wCgaJKfxY )
and issues raised by QA-Review.

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

Shephered is satisfied with QA-reviews performed to date, but
AD has indicated that a RTG-QA review is necessary prior to AD evaluation.

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

NETCONF WG reviewers (July and November 2015) understood this requirement,
and accepted the yang push technical description as a NETCONF WG document:
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/)

Other protocols included in an I2RS amalgamated protocol will need to develop
similar mechanisms so this requirement document is necessary.

(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 NETCONF reviews were done.

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:
Eric Voit (evoit@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/xsoSTNZz8xihKU6IPbar0_gDVXw

Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/0UwXWFMKbi2ddaCscqLvl7XwSAw
[In June]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/XdLV7CAz2vPvSwV577oPR6O5VL8

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

Alexander Clemm (alex@cisco.com)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/381Kd70gQz1PyZh3dpwQOalBqNo

(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 disclosure

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

Solid full WG agreement and discussion.
NETCONF has adopted a technology draft based on the requirements.

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

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 are mentioned in:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=Shepherd&email_list=i2rs&qdr=w

(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?

All references are appropriate. 
Shepherd has request authors to update draft to include RFC2119, and
place draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture and draft-i2rs-traceability. 

(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
5 protocol requirements documents.

(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? 

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
document. 

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.