Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
   few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Shepherd:
The WG consensus represents the strong concurrence of a small amount of
individuals with the other folks giving comments on the changes of the
document. WGLC has received some detailed reviews and other additional
comments, there is no objection to publication. Here is a direct link to that
WGLC process:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lRVid8TdPOglKyHxfDxAHAlTUXE/

As such, the document has reached broad agreement.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd:
There was no controversy about particular points, and the shepherd doesn't
notice any decisions where the consensus was particularly rough.

This document has received enough review in both WG meeting and on the NETCONF
WG mailing list, both authors and the shepherd believe that all the comments
and questions from that review have been incorporated into the document.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
   so, please summarize 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.)

Shepherd:
No one threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
   the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
   plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
   either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
   (where)?

Shepherd:
The shepherd knows that there is an existing implementation from INSA Unyte
team, which is an open-sourced library for collecting HTTPS-notif protocol
message available at https://github.com/insa-unyte/https-notif-c-collector. No
other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

The shepherd is unaware of any potential implementers indicating plans to
implement.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
   IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
   from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
   reviews took place.

Shepherd:
The shepherd doesn't think the contents of this document closely interact with
technologies in other fields, and therefore the shepherd doesn't believe this
document needs review from other IETF working groups or external organizations.
The shepherd doesn't see any public review from other IETF working groups or
external organizations occurred before.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
   such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd:
The document went through a YANG doctor review as part of the Last Call process.
Here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06-yangdoctors-lc-lindem-2021-01-27/
And here is the related discussion about the Yang doctor last call review on
the NETCONF WG mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9dpwQHFIwhpPQxdKNLfLKOSNerE/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
   been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
   formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
   the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
   comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
   in [RFC 8342][5]?

Shepherd:
The document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and
`yanglint` validation, no errors or warnings have been flagged out. $pyang
--ietf ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers@2022-08-22.yang $yanglint 
ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers@2022-08-22.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-https-notif-transport@2022-08-22.yang
$yanglint  ietf-https-notif-transport@2022-08-22.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers@2022-08-22.yang > test1.yang && diff
ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers@2022-08-22.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
5c5
<   prefix "snr";
---
>   prefix snr;
15d14
<
22d20
<
59c57
<   revision "2022-08-22" {
---
>   revision 2022-08-22 {
70d67
<
73d69
<
80d75
<
97,98c92,93
<   augment
<     "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
---
>   augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers"
>         + "/sn:receiver" {
101,102c96,97
<         path "/sn:subscriptions/snr:receiver-instances/" +
<              "snr:receiver-instance/snr:name";
---
>         path "/sn:subscriptions/snr:receiver-instances/"
>            + "snr:receiver-instance/snr:name";
112d106
<

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
ietf-https-notif-transport@2022-08-22.yang > test2.yang && diff
ietf-https-notif-transport@2022-08-22.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
4c4
<   prefix "hnt";
---
>   prefix hnt;
11d10
<
17d15
<
24d21
<
33d29
<
40d35
<
67c62
<   revision "2022-08-22" {
---
>   revision 2022-08-22 {
113c108
<       if-feature receiver-identity;
---
>       if-feature "receiver-identity";
134,135c129,130
<   augment "/sn:subscriptions/snr:receiver-instances/" +
<           "snr:receiver-instance/snr:transport-type" {
---
>   augment "/sn:subscriptions/snr:receiver-instances/"
>         + "snr:receiver-instance/snr:transport-type" {

Note that DataTracker’s YANG validator reports 0 errors and 2 warnings which
are ignored by me (I am using yanglint 2.0.112, whereas DataTracker is using
yanglint 1.9.2).

Both of the YANG modules defined in this document comply with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342].

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
   final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
   BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd:
The Shepherd has read the document, tested it against "idnits", and validated
the syntactical correctness of both modules defined in the document using
"pyang" and "yanglint", with neither returning any errors or warnings.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
   document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
   to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Shepherd:
Yes. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, the shepherd believes that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Shepherd:
The shepherd doesn't see any related issues that are listed at
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics. The shepherd believes that
there is nothing that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Shepherd:
This document is requested to be published as a Proposed standard. In this
case, it's the correct state because this documents defines a protocol for
sending notifications over HTTPS.

This status is properly reflected on the title page and in the Datatracker
(here is the direct link:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif/).

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd:
No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.

The Area director(only because both chairs are listed as authors on this
document) has requested an IPR call on the list. Both authors confirmed that
they are not aware of any IPR related to this document. All responses indicated
no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/D1nXqZ3EJAzmugdoIvNTWz9Ehwg/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd:
There are 2 authors (no greater than 5) for this draft and no contributor being
listed. Each author did not confirmed their willingness to be listed as such
explicitly, but the shepherd assumes that both of the authors have been listed
for a long time and their silence implies consent. Both of the authors have
been actively involved in the discussion about this document both on the list
and during WG meeting. and their response to the IPR poll during WGLC( here is
the direct link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/D1nXqZ3EJAzmugdoIvNTWz9Ehwg) also
implies that both authors are aware of their status on the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Shepherd:
I-D nits has been tested against -12, and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws
(~~), 3 warnings (==), 0 comments (--), which are innocuous. Manual check of
Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts reveals no issues.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd:
The shepherd has reviewed that all references within this document have been
identified as either normative or informative, and all the informative and
normative references are classified correctly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd:
None. All the normative references in the document are freely available to
anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

Shepherd:
There is no normative downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd:
No. All normative references are published except
[I-D.ietf-netconf-http-client-server] which needs to be published first before
this document being progressed. It has been planned to move
[I-D.ietf-netconf-http-client-server] for publication first.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd:
The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Shepherd:
The shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section. This document
registers two URIs and two YANG modules. Besides that, the document also
requests to define a "Capabilities for HTTPS Notification Receivers" registry.

The shepherd confirms that all aspects of the document requiring IANA
assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. The shepherd also confirms that any referenced IANA registries have
been clearly identified in the document, and the newly created "Capabilities
for HTTPS Notification Receivers" IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Shepherd:
The new IANA registries will not require Designated Expert Review for future
allocations.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
Back