Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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. 

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 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:

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

Technical Summary

  This document describes a framework for traceability in the Interface
   to the Routing System (I2RS) and information model for that
   framework.  It specifies the motivation, requirements, use cases, and
   defines an information model for recording interactions between
   elements implementing the I2RS protocol.  This framework provides a
   consistent tracing interface for components implementing the I2RS
   architecture to record what was done, by which component, and when.
   It aims to improve the management of I2RS implementations, and can be
   used for troubleshooting, auditing, forensics, and accounting
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 I2RS protocols. 

  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 did not change the traceability draft. 
  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 has been requested, but not assigned. 
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:

Document will updated to latest revision of architecture and problem statement after 
the WG LC for editorial closes on 1/6/2016.  

Routing-QA was requested in December, but not completed. 
If possible, the Routing QA-Review will be sent at the same time. 

(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 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 2015) did not feel this requirement added to their 
protocol requirements.  The traceability requirements exist to 
document these requirements for other protocols. 

(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. 

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: 
Carlos Pignataro ( declared IPR in the following messages:

Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) (

Joe Clarke (

(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. 

(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

Nits are mentioned above.  I2RS architecture and problem statement references
are back-level, and will be updated once the I2RS architecture and problem statement
pass editorial WG LC on 1/6/2016. 

(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 and problem statement currently have downward references, 
but these will be changed on 1/6/2016.  

(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.