Shepherd writeup
rfc8049-19

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model

(1) What type of RFC is being requested? 
Why is this the proper type of RFC? 
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

The type of RFC being requested is Proposed Standard since this document includes YANG model that is being standardized. It also serves as framework to evaluate the set of YANG models that have already been developed or are under development, and helps identify any missing models or details. It is also viewed as driving requirements for protocol configuration model so that the service parameters can be mapped into inputs used by the protocol models.

The type of RFC has been indicated in the title page header.

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

Technical Summary:

   This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for communication 
   between customers and network operators, and to provide input to automated 
   control and configuration applications used to deliver a Layer 3 Provider 
   Provisioned VPN service.  The document is limited to the BGP PE-based VPNs 
   as described in RFC4110 and RFC4364.  This model is intended to be instantiated
   at management system to deliver the overall service.  This model is not a 
   configuration model to be used directly on network elements.  This model 
   provides an abstracted view of the Layer 3 IPVPN service configuration components.  
   It will be up to a management system to take this as an input and use
   specific configurations models to configure the different network
   elements to deliver the service.  How configuration of network
   elements is done is out of scope of the document.

Working Group Summary:

Consensus was complete in the working group after one and half year of development.
A first WGLC was largely silent reflecting (the chairs believe) satisfaction with previous discussions.
But after solicitation, a number of people from network operators responded that they considered
the document ready.
A few last-minute questions were received and handled.

Document Quality:

The shepherd is aware of a proof-of-concept implementation based on an earlier version of the document.
This document is ready to ship, but there are a few minor editorial changes arising from document
shepherd review - these can be handled during IETF last call.

Personnel:

Qin Wu is the Document Shepherd.
Benoit Claise 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. 

The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called.

Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to RFC6020 should be replaced 
by RFC 7950 since YANG has been proposed to be used for RESTCONF and YANG version 1.1,
i.e.,RFC7950 can be used to well support RESTCONF. 

This and a few minor editorial changes arising from document shepherd review can be handled
during IETF last call.

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

There are no concerns from document Shepherd.

(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. 

The early review were requested from YANG Doctor. 
In addition, the documents already received additional sufficient review from Landry and Jean-Philippe
representing the operators.

A final YANG Doctor review has been commissioned and is promised to arrive during IETF last call.

(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 concerns.

(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?

The authors confirmed conformance to BCPs 78 and 79 during the work on the document.
They have just been asked to explicitly reconfirm this for the completed document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No

(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? 

There is solid consensus of all people who have contributed to L3SM Service Model.

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

None.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. 

One minor Nits was found in this document is:
"
  ** There are 31 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 13 characters in excess of 72.
"
This is a function of how the YANG tree is presented as a figure by XML2RFC. 
The RFC Editor can resolve the issue.

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

Early YANG Doctor review was provided.
A further YANG Doctor review has been requested.
The module parses cleanly.

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

Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are 
otherwise in an unclear state?  

No. All normative references are to RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? 

No. All normative references are upward.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No. No impact on status of existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section. 

The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to
create and populate the new registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. 

None.

(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.
YANG validation done.
XML code snippet validation done. 
No BNF, MIB definitions in draft.
Back