Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 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?

Proposed Standard

(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 presents a retrieval method YANG Data model for
   connectionless OAM protocols.  It provides a technology-independent
   RPC commands for connectionless OAM protocols.  The retrieval methods
   model presented here can be extended to include technology specific

Working Group Summary

  This document is the product of an early split of LIME YANG
  Models into Connection-Oriented (C-O) OAM Models and 
  Connectionless (CL, i.e., this) OAM Models. Further, the 
  CL Model is further split into the Model (adjunct document)
  and the retrieval methods (this document).

Document Quality

  There are plans of and implementations of this protocol.
  This includes at least two different implementations of
  the model, as well as product and demos at Bits-n-Bytes.
  Further, there are plans to finalize the implementation of 
  this specification.

  The WG was very active in reviewing these documents. 
  Notably, participants of the BFD and MPLS WGs were
  special reviewers. 
  Additionally, worth mentioning Carl Moberg's YANG
  Doctor review which resulted in many fixes and


  Carlos Pignataro 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.

  This version of the document is ready to be sent to the responsible AD.

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

  No concerns regarding both breath and depth of reviews.

(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.

  YANG, with review taken place by YANG Doctors (Carl Moberg)

(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.


(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, during WG adoption.

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


(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?   

  WG Agreement.

(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 threat of appeal. 

  One working group participant has expressed discontent several
  times. In particular, this participant has expressed concern that 
  his comments have not been addressed and also that he has 
  not been given enough time to review. Part of that discussion can
  be seen at:

  The WG held 4 "Editathon" interims in which we went comment-by-comment
  hosting a discussion and providing a disposition:

  Further, both LIME WG Chairs believe there's been ample opportunity
  to share review and comments in multiple occasions, and that
  the document editors have responded timely and incorporated
  comments. In fact, multiple deadlines were given to this participant.
  Many of these deadlines were not respected, yet the WG and document
  editors waited and incorporated late comments just to get another
  deadline. This caused delay and broke the WG flow.

(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


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

  YANG Doctor

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


(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?

  Yes, to active I-Ds.

(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. 


(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.


(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).

  All looks good.

(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.


(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.

  YANG Doctors Review.
  YANG Validator.