A YANG Data Model for NETCONF Clients and Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-41

A small correction. The private exchange between Kent and Mike is on draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server, but any changes to the model there might impact this draft/model, and thus the Substate it is in.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Daniel Migault for the secdir review.

Section 4.1, 4.2, References:  Why is QUIC mentioned?  There are no configurations for either QUIC or UDP in the body of the draft.  Consider removing it from the SC and references.

Section 4.1 and 4.2, para 2:  Please replace the last sentence with "The YANG-based management protocols have to use a secure transport layer such as SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], or QUIC [RFC9000].  The YANG-based management protocols also have to use mutual authentication."  [and if QUIC is removed, remove it here too.]

Section 4:  While RFC6241 doesn't reference BCP195 (because it predated it), RFC8040 does.  Those statements need to be updated to include RFC9523 and BCP195. Perhaps a statement like this: 'Implementations SHOULD also refer to [BCP195] for additional details.'

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-38
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-38.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Discuss

## Comments

Thanks for your hard work on this document. I have just one nit.

## Nits

### Number of Yang models

This is minor, but can line 183 be changed to just "This document presents
YANG models" as it appears to have more than one as indicated by the other
introductory paragraph?

175        This document presents two YANG [RFC7950] modules, one module to
176        configure a NETCONF [RFC6241] client and the other module to
177        configure a NETCONF server.  Both modules support both NETCONF over
178        SSH [RFC6242] and NETCONF over TLS [RFC7589] and NETCONF Call Home
179        connections [RFC8071].

181    1.1.  Relation to other RFCs

183        This document presents one or more YANG modules [RFC7950] that are
184        part of a collection of RFCs that work together to, ultimately,
185        support the configuration of both the clients and servers of both the
186        NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040] protocols.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Kent,

Thank you for the perseverance to push this forward.

Please find some comments below:

# Not only configuration but also state retrieval

The document reasons about “configuration”/”configure” while the model can also be used to read operations. Please consider updating through the document/module “configure” to “manage.”

Let me know if you want me to share my marked version with the suggested edits.

# It is a Data Model

Please change at least the title as follows:

OLD: NETCONF Client and Server Models
NEW: NETCONF Client and Server Data Models

There are other places where some terminology alignment is needed.

# Not drafts anymore

Many of your RFC XXXX were already published as RFCs. Please update accoridnlgy.

# Check terms not used in the document

CURRENT:
  Various examples in this document use "BASE64VALUE=" as a placeholder
  value for binary data that has been base64 encoded (per Section 9.8
  of [RFC7950]).  This placeholder value is used because real base64
  encoded structures are often many lines long and hence distracting to
  the example being presented.

I failed to find such uses in the document. Please double check.

# Don’t suffix data with their type

CURRENT:
  *  netconf-client-initiate-stack-grouping
  *  netconf-client-listen-stack-grouping
  *  netconf-client-app-grouping

No need to suffix all groupings with “-grouping”. Also, reading things such as “*-grouping" grouping” is heavy. I know that you used such constructs in other documents of your document sent, but NETCONF have this removed in recent reviewed documents (udp groupings, for example). I’d be consistent with latest practices in the WG here.

# Redundant data nodes

CURRENT:
          +--:(ssh) {ssh-initiate}?
          |  +-- ssh
          |    +-- tcp-client-parameters
          |    |  +---u tcpc:tcp-client-grouping
          |    +-- ssh-client-parameters
          |    |  +---u sshc:ssh-client-grouping
          |    +-- netconf-client-parameters
          |        +--u ncc:netconf-client-grouping
          +--:(tls) {tls-initiate}?
            +-- tls
                +-- tcp-client-parameters
                |  +---u tcpc:tcp-client-grouping
                +-- tls-client-parameters
                |  +---u tlsc:tls-client-grouping
                +-- netconf-client-parameters
                  +---u ncc:netconf-client-grouping

The non-expanded display does not reveal this, but there is IMO room to avoid optimize a bit the structure.

For example, any reason why we don’t factorize tcp-client-parameters and netconf-client-parameters for both ssh/tls?

At least for TCP, I understand this is because of a refine statement. Does it worth to have duplicated nodes here? Why no go for SSH port number as default given that this is the MTI for NETCONF?

Still, netconf-parameters part can be factorized between these transports.

The same comment applies for netconf-client-listen-stack-grouping, netconf-server-callhome-stack-grouping, etc.

# Broken trees

Keys are mandatory, not optional. Please check all your lists:

OLD:
    grouping netconf-client-app-grouping:
      +-- initiate! {ssh-initiate or tls-initiate}?
      |  +-- netconf-server* [name]
      |    +-- name?                string
      |    +-- endpoints
      |    |  +-- endpoint* [name]
      |    |    +-- name?                                    string
      |    |    +---u netconf-client-initiate-stack-grouping
      |    +-- connection-type
      |    |  +-- (connection-type)
      |    |    +--:(persistent-connection)
      |    |    |  +-- persistent!
      |    |    +--:(periodic-connection)
      |    |        +-- periodic!
      |    |          +-- period?        uint16
      |    |          +-- anchor-time?    yang:date-and-time
      |    |          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
      |    +-- reconnect-strategy
      |        +-- start-with?    enumeration
      |        +-- max-wait?      uint16
      |        +-- max-attempts?  uint8
      +-- listen! {ssh-listen or tls-listen}?
          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
          +-- endpoints
            +-- endpoint* [name]
                +-- name?                                  string
                +---u netconf-client-listen-stack-grouping

NEW:
    grouping netconf-client-app-grouping:
      +-- initiate! {ssh-initiate or tls-initiate}?
      |  +-- netconf-server* [name]
      |    +-- name                string
      |    +-- endpoints
      |    |  +-- endpoint* [name]
      |    |    +-- name                                  string
      |    |    +---u netconf-client-initiate-stack-grouping
      |    +-- connection-type
      |    |  +-- (connection-type)
      |    |    +--:(persistent-connection)
      |    |    |  +-- persistent!
      |    |    +--:(periodic-connection)
      |    |        +-- periodic!
      |    |          +-- period?        uint16
      |    |          +-- anchor-time?    yang:date-and-time
      |    |          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
      |    +-- reconnect-strategy
      |        +-- start-with?    enumeration
      |        +-- max-wait?      uint16
      |        +-- max-attempts?  uint8
      +-- listen! {ssh-listen or tls-listen}?
          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
          +-- endpoints
            +-- endpoint* [name]
                +-- name                                    string
                +---u netconf-client-listen-stack-grouping


OLD:
    grouping netconf-server-app-grouping:
      +-- listen! {ssh-listen or tls-listen}?
      |  +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
      |  +-- endpoints
      |    +-- endpoint* [name]
      |        +-- name?                                  string
      |        +---u netconf-server-listen-stack-grouping
      +-- call-home! {ssh-call-home or tls-call-home}?
          +-- netconf-client* [name]
            +-- name?                string
            +-- endpoints
            |  +-- endpoint* [name]
            |    +-- name?                                    string
            |    +---u netconf-server-callhome-stack-grouping
            +-- connection-type
            |  +-- (connection-type)
            |    +--:(persistent-connection)
            |    |  +-- persistent!
            |    +--:(periodic-connection)
            |        +-- periodic!
            |          +-- period?        uint16
            |          +-- anchor-time?    yang:date-and-time
            |          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
            +-- reconnect-strategy
                +-- start-with?    enumeration
                +-- max-wait?      uint16
                +-- max-attempts?  uint8

NEW:
    grouping netconf-server-app-grouping:
      +-- listen! {ssh-listen or tls-listen}?
      |  +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
      |  +-- endpoints
      |    +-- endpoint* [name]
      |        +-- name                                  string
      |        +---u netconf-server-listen-stack-grouping
      +-- call-home! {ssh-call-home or tls-call-home}?
          +-- netconf-client* [name]
            +-- name                string
            +-- endpoints
            |  +-- endpoint* [name]
            |    +-- name                                    string
            |    +---u netconf-server-callhome-stack-grouping
            +-- connection-type
            |  +-- (connection-type)
            |    +--:(persistent-connection)
            |    |  +-- persistent!
            |    +--:(periodic-connection)
            |        +-- periodic!
            |          +-- period?        uint16
            |          +-- anchor-time?    yang:date-and-time
            |          +-- idle-timeout?  uint16
            +-- reconnect-strategy
                +-- start-with?    enumeration
                +-- max-wait?      uint16
                +-- max-attempts?  uint8

# Use terminology consistent with base specs

For example,

• s/Protocol-accessible Nodes/Protocol-accessible Data Nodes
• s/call-home/call home
• s/Protocol-accessible nodes are those nodes/Protocol-accessible nodes are those data nodes

# Examples

JSON examples would be more convenient for readers, but I understand this is subjective.

# IETF Module template

Please update to follow the template at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#name-template-for-ietf-modules.

Also, update to 2025.

# Remove boilerplate from the module

CURRENT:
        The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
        'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED',
        'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document
        are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119)
        (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all
        capitals, as shown here.";

Can be deleted as the only use is not adequate. Please consider:

OLD:
                description
                  "NETCONF/TLS clients MUST pass some
                    authentication credentials.";

NEW:
                description
                  "NETCONF/TLS clients must pass some
                    authentication credentials.";

This is a description, not a requirement. The protocol compliance is ensured by the ”must client-identity” statement.

# Avoid embedding reference in the description

Use reference statement for that. For example, I suggest to delete “described in RFC 8071” from the description of the netconf-client-listen-stack-grouping grouping.

# On periodic-connection 

I’m not asking to change this, but I guess reusing one of the groupings in draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang would be appropriate, but let’s not delay this spec further ;-)

# Authoritative reference for defaults

CURRENT:
                  leaf period {
                    type uint16;
                    units "minutes";
                    default "60";

Or

                  leaf idle-timeout {
                    type uint16;
                    units "seconds";
                    default 180; // three minutes

(there are many occurrences in the module)

Consider adding a reference where the default is defined. Thanks.

# Check enum is appropriate

CURRENT:
            leaf start-with {
              type enumeration {

Are we sure we won’t define any other strategy? For example, last connected for a given AF and the like.

# Please run pyang to have the modules in the canonical order

There are some places where I don’t think the canonical order is followed.

# Factorize among modules

CURRENT:
          container connection-type {
            description
              "Indicates the NETCONF server's preference for how the
                NETCONF connection is maintained.";

Wonder whether you considered factorizing among modules as this one, for example, has the same data nodes as netconf-client-app-grouping

# Security considerations

No need to repeat common considerations, one single section with specific cons for each model called out would be OK.

Also, please update to follow the latest version of the template: https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc8407bis/blob/main/templates/sec-template.txt

# Save a question from IANA and align with the guidance in the 8407bis

NEW:
      name:        ietf-netconf-client
      namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-client
      prefix:      ncc
      maintained by IANA? No
      reference:    RFC HHHH

      name:        ietf-netconf-server
      namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-server
      prefix:      ncs
      maintained by IANA? N
      reference:    RFC HHHH

Cheers,
Med

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-37. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-netconf-client
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-client
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-netconf-server
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-server
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-netconf-client
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-client
Prefix: ncc
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-netconf-server
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-server
Prefix: ncs
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server@ietf.org, maqiufang1@huawei.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (NETCONF Client and Server Models) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'NETCONF Client and Server Models'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-09-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document presents two YANG modules, one module to configure a
  NETCONF client and the other module to configure a NETCONF server.
  Both modules support both the SSH and TLS transport protocols, and
  support both standard NETCONF and NETCONF Call Home connections.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

  This draft contains placeholder values that need to be replaced with
  finalized values at the time of publication.  This note summarizes
  all of the substitutions that are needed.  No other RFC Editor
  instructions are specified elsewhere in this document.

  Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in
  progress.  Please apply the following replacements (note: not all may
  be present):

  *  AAAA --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-
      types

  *  BBBB --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-trust-
      anchors

  *  CCCC --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-keystore

  *  DDDD --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-
      server

  *  EEEE --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-
      server

  *  FFFF --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-
      server

  *  GGGG --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-http-
      client-server

  *  HHHH --> the assigned RFC value for this draft
  Artwork in this document contains placeholder values for the date of
  publication of this draft.  Please apply the following replacement:

  *  2024-08-14 --> the publication date of this draft

  The "Relation to other RFCs" section Section 1.1 contains the text
  "one or more YANG modules" and, later, "modules".  This text is
  sourced from a file in a context where it is unknown how many modules
  a draft defines.  The text is not wrong as is, but it may be improved
  by stating more directly how many modules are defined.

  The "Relation to other RFCs" section Section 1.1 contains a self-
  reference to this draft, along with a corresponding reference in the
  Appendix.  Please replace the self-reference in this section with
  "This RFC" (or similar) and remove the self-reference in the
  "Normative/Informative References" section, whichever it is in.

  Tree-diagrams in this draft may use the '\' line-folding mode defined
  in RFC 8792.  However, nicer-to-the-eye is when the '\\' line-folding
  mode is used.  The AD suggested suggested putting a request here for
  the RFC Editor to help convert "ugly" '\' folded examples to use the
  '\\' folding mode.  "Help convert" may be interpreted as, identify
  what looks ugly and ask the authors to make the adjustment.

  The following Appendix section is to be removed prior to publication:

  *  Appendix A.  Change Log




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

While the OPSDIR and SECDIR reviews are still pending, and I hope they come in before the LC expires, YANG doctor has given his approval to the document.

# 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 document has only one author actively involved in the progression of the document. But this document has been progressed for more than 6 years and has been reviewed multiple times during their life time with 2 rounds of WGLC.
That said, the shepherd thinks that this document has reached a broad agreement as this WG would be expected to reach.

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, the authors and shepherd believe that all the comments and questions from that review have be 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 from the mailing list that Ramkumar from Nokia declared they have implemented the "ietf-netconf-server" module for configuration of call home parameters (and here is a direct link to that: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LhJ21qZXKOMa3KgeTcvO8sRfGso/). No other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

But client-server suites of documents have always been urged to move forward and the shepherd notices that this document is referenced by RFC 8194(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8194/) that could use YANG modules defined in this document to configure NETCONF server channels, both of which are very likely to lead to implementation.

## 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 IEF working groups or external organizations, 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:
This document defines two YANG modules. It went through a YANG doctors last call review by Andy Bierman, and here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-04-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2017-07-28/

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/LAOGs6u1AktzAHMmgTMMTMimZyc/


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:

Yes, the document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and `yanglint` validation. No errors or warnings have been flagged out.  DataTracker’s YANG validator also reports 0 errors and 0 warnings.

The shepherd has used the following command to check both YANG modules:
$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang >test1.yang && diff ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
211c205
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
307c301
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
445c438
<                  default 120; // two minutes
---
>                  default "120"; // two minutes
547c540
<    if-feature central-netconf-client-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-client-supported";

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang >test2.yang && diff ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
661c653
<    if-feature central-netconf-server-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-server-supported";
 
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.
The shepherd also checked the XML code in the document using "yanglint" without 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, it is the shepherd's opinion 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 took a look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics  but didn't find any issues that related to this document.
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:
The intended RFC status is proposed standard.
This is an appropriate type of RFC for YANG models that will be implemented and must interoperate.
And Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent (here is the direct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/).

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 applies to this document.

The chair has requested an IPR call on the list as part of WGLC process.
The author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to this document.
Thus there is no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mM9XVWiZ6srefgdaZYvMaQ4RB2U/

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 is only one author listed on the front page who has always been actively involved in progressing this work without any other editor and contributor.

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 v-27 (here is the direct link: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-27.txt), and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 0 comment (--), which the shepherd thinks are innocuous.
Manual check of content guidelines 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 checked all the normative and informative references and thinks that all the references are correctly classified.

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:
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.

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:
This document has normative references to other client-server and security suites of documents(I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore, I-D.ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server).
It has been planned to submit the set of drafts to the IESG for publication as a cluster.

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:
No, 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 consideration section and checked its consistency with the body of the document.
The shepherd confirmed that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is no newly created IANA registry in this document.

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:
There is no new IANA registries, thus this document doesn’t 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/

# 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 document has only one author actively involved in the progression of the document. But this document has been progressed for more than 6 years and has been reviewed multiple times during their life time with 2 rounds of WGLC.
That said, the shepherd thinks that this document has reached a broad agreement as this WG would be expected to reach.

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, the authors and shepherd believe that all the comments and questions from that review have be 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 from the mailing list that Ramkumar from Nokia declared they have implemented the "ietf-netconf-server" module for configuration of call home parameters (and here is a direct link to that: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LhJ21qZXKOMa3KgeTcvO8sRfGso/). No other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

But client-server suites of documents have always been urged to move forward and the shepherd notices that this document is referenced by RFC 8194(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8194/) that could use YANG modules defined in this document to configure NETCONF server channels, both of which are very likely to lead to implementation.

## 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 IEF working groups or external organizations, 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:
This document defines two YANG modules. It went through a YANG doctors last call review by Andy Bierman, and here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-04-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2017-07-28/

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/LAOGs6u1AktzAHMmgTMMTMimZyc/


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:

Yes, the document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and `yanglint` validation. No errors or warnings have been flagged out.  DataTracker’s YANG validator also reports 0 errors and 0 warnings.

The shepherd has used the following command to check both YANG modules:
$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang >test1.yang && diff ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
211c205
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
307c301
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
445c438
<                  default 120; // two minutes
---
>                  default "120"; // two minutes
547c540
<    if-feature central-netconf-client-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-client-supported";

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang >test2.yang && diff ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
661c653
<    if-feature central-netconf-server-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-server-supported";
 
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.
The shepherd also checked the XML code in the document using "yanglint" without 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, it is the shepherd's opinion 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 took a look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics  but didn't find any issues that related to this document.
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:
The intended RFC status is proposed standard.
This is an appropriate type of RFC for YANG models that will be implemented and must interoperate.
And Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent (here is the direct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/).

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 applies to this document.

The chair has requested an IPR call on the list as part of WGLC process.
The author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to this document.
Thus there is no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mM9XVWiZ6srefgdaZYvMaQ4RB2U/

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 is only one author listed on the front page who has always been actively involved in progressing this work without any other editor and contributor.

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 v-27 (here is the direct link: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-27.txt), and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 0 comment (--), which the shepherd thinks are innocuous.
Manual check of content guidelines 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 checked all the normative and informative references and thinks that all the references are correctly classified.

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:
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.

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:
This document has normative references to other client-server and security suites of documents(I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore, I-D.ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server).
It has been planned to submit the set of drafts to the IESG for publication as a cluster.

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:
No, 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 consideration section and checked its consistency with the body of the document.
The shepherd confirmed that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is no newly created IANA registry in this document.

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:
There is no new IANA registries, thus this document doesn’t 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/

# 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 document has only one author actively involved in the progression of the document. But this document has been progressed for more than 6 years and has been reviewed multiple times during their life time with 2 rounds of WGLC.
That said, the shepherd thinks that this document has reached a broad agreement as this WG would be expected to reach.

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, the authors and shepherd believe that all the comments and questions from that review have be 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 from the mailing list that Ramkumar from Nokia declared they have implemented the "ietf-netconf-server" module for configuration of call home parameters (and here is a direct link to that: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LhJ21qZXKOMa3KgeTcvO8sRfGso/). No other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

But client-server suites of documents have always been urged to move forward and the shepherd notices that this document is referenced by RFC 8194(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8194/) that could use YANG modules defined in this document to configure NETCONF server channels, both of which are very likely to lead to implementation.

## 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 IEF working groups or external organizations, 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:
This document defines two YANG modules. It went through a YANG doctors last call review by Andy Bierman, and here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-04-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2017-07-28/

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/LAOGs6u1AktzAHMmgTMMTMimZyc/


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:

Yes, the document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and `yanglint` validation.

The shepherd has used the following command to check both YANG modules:
$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang >test1.yang && diff ietf-netconf-client@2022-10-19.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
211c205
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
307c301
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
445c438
<                  default 120; // two minutes
---
>                  default "120"; // two minutes
547c540
<    if-feature central-netconf-client-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-client-supported";

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang >test2.yang && diff ietf-netconf-server@2022-10-19.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
661c653
<    if-feature central-netconf-server-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-server-supported";
 
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.
The shepherd also checked the XML code in the document using "yanglint" without 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, it is the shepherd's opinion 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 took a look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics  but didn't find any issues that related to this document.
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:
The intended RFC status is proposed standard.
This is an appropriate type of RFC for YANG models that will be implemented and must interoperate.
And Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent (here is the direct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/).

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 applies to this document.

The chair has requested an IPR call on the list as part of WGLC process.
The author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to this document.
Thus there is no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mM9XVWiZ6srefgdaZYvMaQ4RB2U/

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 is only one author listed on the front page who has always been actively involved in progressing this work without any other editor and contributor.

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 v-27 (here is the direct link: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-27.txt), and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 0 comment (--), which the shepherd thinks are innocuous.
Manual check of content guidelines 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 checked all the normative and informative references and thinks that all the references are correctly classified.

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:
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.

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:
This document has normative references to other client-server and security suites of documents(I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore, I-D.ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server).
It has been planned to submit the set of drafts to the IESG for publication as a cluster.

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:
No, 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 consideration section and checked its consistency with the body of the document.
The shepherd confirmed that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is no newly created IANA registry in this document.

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:
There is no new IANA registries, thus this document doesn’t 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/

# 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 document has only one author with other WG members actively reviewing and commenting. This document has been progressed for more than 6 years and has been reviewed multiple times during their life time with 2 rounds of WGLC.
That said, the shepherd thinks that this document has reached a broad agreement as this WG would be expected to reach.

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, the authors and shepherd believe that all the comments and questions from that review have be 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 from the mailing list that Ramkumar from Nokia declared they have implemented the "ietf-netconf-server" module for configuration of call home parameters (and here is a direct link to that: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LhJ21qZXKOMa3KgeTcvO8sRfGso/). No other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

But client-server suites of documents have always been urged to move forward and the shepherd notices that this document is referenced by RFC 8194(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8194/) that could use YANG modules defined in this document to configure NETCONF server channels, both of which are very likely to lead to implementation.

## 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 IEF working groups or external organizations, 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:
This document defines two YANG modules. It went through a YANG doctors last call review by Andy Bierman, and here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-04-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2017-07-28/

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/LAOGs6u1AktzAHMmgTMMTMimZyc/


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:

Yes, the document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and `yanglint` validation, except one error reports that the revision date for "ietf-ssh-client/common/server" module is not found. The shepherd has already posted it to the WG and waits the author to submit another version.

The shepherd has used the following command to check both YANG modules:
$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang >test1.yang && diff ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
211c205
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
307c301
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
445c438
<                  default 120; // two minutes
---
>                  default "120"; // two minutes
547c540
<    if-feature central-netconf-client-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-client-supported";

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang >test2.yang && diff ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
661c653
<    if-feature central-netconf-server-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-server-supported";
 
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.
The shepherd also checked the XML code in the document using "yanglint" without 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, it is the shepherd's opinion 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 took a look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics  but didn't find any issues that related to this document.
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:
The intended RFC status is proposed standard.
This is an appropriate type of RFC for YANG models that will be implemented and must interoperate.
And Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent (here is the direct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/).

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 applies to this document.

The chair has requested an IPR call on the list as part of WGLC process.
The author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to this document.
Thus there is no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mM9XVWiZ6srefgdaZYvMaQ4RB2U/

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 is only one author listed on the front page who has always been actively involved in progressing this work without any other editor and contributor.

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 v-26 (here is the direct link: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-26.txt), and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--), which are innocuous.
Manual check of content guidelines 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 checked all the normative and informative references and thinks that all the references are correctly classified.

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:
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.

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:
This document has normative references to other client-server and security suites of documents(I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore, I-D.ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server).
It has been planned to submit the set of drafts to the IESG for publication as a cluster.

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:
No, 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 consideration section and checked its consistency with the body of the document.
The shepherd confirmed that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is no newly created IANA registry in this document.

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:
There is no new IANA registries, thus this document doesn’t 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/

# 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 document has only one author actively involved in the progression of the document. But this document has been progressed for more than 6 years and has been reviewed multiple times during their life time with 2 rounds of WGLC.
That said, the shepherd thinks that this document has reached a broad agreement as this WG would be expected to reach.

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, the authors and shepherd believe that all the comments and questions from that review have be 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 from the mailing list that Ramkumar from Nokia declared they have implemented the "ietf-netconf-server" module for configuration of call home parameters (and here is a direct link to that: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LhJ21qZXKOMa3KgeTcvO8sRfGso/). No other existing implementations have been publicly reported.

But client-server suites of documents have always been urged to move forward and the shepherd notices that this document is referenced by RFC 8194(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8194/) that could use YANG modules defined in this document to configure NETCONF server channels, both of which are very likely to lead to implementation.

## 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 IEF working groups or external organizations, 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:
This document defines two YANG modules. It went through a YANG doctors last call review by Andy Bierman, and here is a direct link to that review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-04-yangdoctors-lc-bierman-2017-07-28/

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/LAOGs6u1AktzAHMmgTMMTMimZyc/


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:

Yes, the document contains two YANG modules. Both have passed through `pyang` and `yanglint` validation, except one error reports that the revision date for "ietf-ssh-client/common/server" module is not found. The shepherd has already posted it to the WG and waits the author to submit another version.

The shepherd has used the following command to check both YANG modules:
$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang

$pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang
$yanglint ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang

The shepherd also tested the formatting using the command:
$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang >test1.yang && diff ietf-netconf-client@2022-05-24.yang test1.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
211c205
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
307c301
<            must client-identity {
---
>            must 'client-identity' {
445c438
<                  default 120; // two minutes
---
>                  default "120"; // two minutes
547c540
<    if-feature central-netconf-client-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-client-supported";

$pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang >test2.yang && diff ietf-netconf-server@2022-05-24.yang test2.yang

The following results are returned which the shepherd thinks is innocuous:
661c653
<    if-feature central-netconf-server-supported;
---
>    if-feature "central-netconf-server-supported";
 
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.
The shepherd also checked the XML code in the document using "yanglint" without 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, it is the shepherd's opinion 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 took a look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics  but didn't find any issues that related to this document.
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:
The intended RFC status is proposed standard.
This is an appropriate type of RFC for YANG models that will be implemented and must interoperate.
And Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent (here is the direct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server/).

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 applies to this document.

The chair has requested an IPR call on the list as part of WGLC process.
The author confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR related to this document.
Thus there is no IPR needs to be disclosed.

Here is the directed link to the IPR call request:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mM9XVWiZ6srefgdaZYvMaQ4RB2U/

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 is only one author listed on the front page who has always been actively involved in progressing this work without any other editor and contributor.

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 v-26 (here is the direct link: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-26.txt), and it reports 0 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--), which are innocuous.
Manual check of content guidelines 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 checked all the normative and informative references and thinks that all the references are correctly classified.

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:
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.

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:
This document has normative references to other client-server and security suites of documents(I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore, I-D.ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server, I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server).
It has been planned to submit the set of drafts to the IESG for publication as a cluster.

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:
No, 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 consideration section and checked its consistency with the body of the document.
The shepherd confirmed that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries and any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
There is no newly created IANA registry in this document.

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:
There is no new IANA registries, thus this document doesn’t 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/