# 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?
This draft was last called together with other two companion drafts, i.e.,
draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types and draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors. The
WGLC was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4
peoples. These reviews and inputs standard for broad agreement which greatly
helps improve the quality of the document and addresses remaining issues
associated with this draft. This document also acknowledged 21 people for
valuable reviews.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No controversy.
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.)
Some debates after WGLC on SSH/TLS key generation support, but it reached
agreement at last.
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)?
The author of this document reported that there are several implementation
of
of the higher-level drafts.
## 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.
No, but two Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR and two YANG
reviews has been requested from YANG Doctor Design team.All four reviews
have occurred.
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.
Two YANG Doctor review have been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
be found in the datatracker.
Two Security review have been carried out by Magnus Nystrom and Sandra L.
Murphy respectively which can be found in the datatracker as well.
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]?
The PYANG compilation tool in the datatracker shows no errors and warnings
in YANG. Yes, the YANG module complies with the NMDA architecture.
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.
xml2rfc ietf tool and rfcfold, pyang,yanglint automation tools have been
installed to validate sections of the final version of the document
including example snippets. These tools show no errors and warnings in the
document.
## 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?
The document shepherd reviewed the discussion of this document in more
details during WGLC and after WGLC and author of this document has addressed
all the comments.
The document shepherd also reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor comments. These comments have
been addressed in v-26.
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?
Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well
followed. There is no ndeed for additional review.
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?
The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed
standard. It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been
implemented. Yes, the datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
intent.
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.
WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2020-06-02,which can be found at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/31l9RngIfzy7IOt6fsxG6fxFLLo/
The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR
related to this document on 2020-06-18, which can be found at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/RK8iBi2fGmmwsYtZQE7pfPPw6cA/
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.
There is only one author for this document. Therefore the question listed
here doesn't apply.
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.)
idnits tool flags no issues and warnings. Everything looks fine after
reading the content guidelines on author.ietf.org.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
None.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references 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.
None.
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?
None.
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.
No change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
imports module defined in I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types and RFC8341 which
are normative references.
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]).
The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
two new registries are correctly specified and consistent with the body of
this document.The referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
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.
None.
[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/