Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is indicated in the title
page as a "Standards Track" document. This document extends a standards track
document by supporting NMDA, which is also a standards track document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document extends the NETCONF protocol defined in RFC 6241 in order to
support the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in RFC 8342.

This document updates both RFC 6241 and RFC 7950.  The update to RFC 6241 adds
new operations <get-data> and <edit-data>, and augments existing operations
<lock>, <unlock>, and <validate>.  The update to RFC 7950 requires the usage of
I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by NETCONF servers implementing the Network
Management Datastore Architecture.

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?

There were no major controversies with respect to this document, or decisions
that were particularly rough. The most discussion happened around the use of
"with-defaults" parameter as it relates to the operational datastore. After
some discussion around it, additional text was added to the document to address
the issue.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

There are vendors that have indicated an interest in implementing the changes
for NMDA, or have asked questions on the mailing list regarding the changes
that are required to support NMDA.

Implementors have requested for more examples for features introduced by this
document, but the request came late in the process (after LC), and there is
little appetite for change to the document at this time.

A YANG doctors review did result in a few changes to the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

The Document Shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the Responsible Area Director
is Ignas Bagdonas.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the documented, and found one warning on the
YANG module which is included in the document. The warning has been addressed
as part of -06 update.

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

The document was reviewed by few people in the WG in depth, with most of others
being silent. This group has remained small, thus lacking breadth, is spite of
every effort made by the chairs to involve other folks to review the document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

The document has not introduced anything that require particular review from a
broader perspective, other than those performed, i.e. OPS and YANG doctors
review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

One aspect of the draft that might be confusing is the update to RFC7950. The
document states that and update to RFC7950 is required. Specifically it says
"The update to RFC 7950 requires the usage of I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by
NETCONF servers implementing the Network Management Datastore Architecture.".
At the same time RFC7950 already says the following:

"The following changes have been done to the NETCONF mapping:

   o  A server advertises support for YANG 1.1 modules by using
      ietf-yang-library [RFC7895] instead of listing them as
      capabilities in the <hello> message."

It would be help to note that the change being requested in 7950 is from 7895
to 7895bis, or from yang-library:1.0 to yang-library:1.1.

Secondly, and this may not be directly related to this document, is support for
both YANG 1.0 and 1.1 modules. Implementors are for the first time are having
to deal with the support of YANG in a backward compatible fashion as they
implement NMDA version of NETCONF. It is not clear as to what a server needs to
do to support both 1.0 and 1.1 modules. This is not clarified anywhere. It
would help to clarify (maybe in 7950) that YANG 1.0 models are advertised in
<hello> and yang-library contains both 1.0 and 1.1 models, even if means
duplication of 1.0 models advertisement.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, all the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs related
to this document.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong concurrence of a few individuals within the WG, with others
being silent, but mostly because they agree with the contents of the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated discontent with the
document.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

An idnits was run on the document, but the warnings it reports are false
positives. The document has proper headers, abstract and introduction for
documents that are updated. It also makes proper use of 2119 boilerplate,
including wording from RFC8174.

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

A YANG doctors review was done of the draft, and issues raised as a result of
it were addressed in the document.

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

Yes, all the references within the document have been identified as either
normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There is one normative reference to draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, and that
document is also in the IESG queue for publication.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

There are no downward normative references in the document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

There are two documents that get updated if this document is approved. Both
RFC6241 and RFC7950 have been listed in the title page header, listed in the
abstract and discussed in the introduction of the document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).

The document registers two capabilities, one URI and one YANG module. The
registries for each of them have been identified in the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The document does not request any new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

A shepherd review of the document was performed and it involved running tools
on the enclosed YANG model, which revealed a warning, and the warning has been
shared with the authors and the WG. A similar check of the examples in the
document was performed against the model, and no errors were reported against
the examples.
Back