(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 RFC is a Proposed Standard. It is updating an existing Proposed Standard
RFC, RFC 8040, and indicates it so on the title page.
(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 RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in order to
support the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in RFC 8342.
Working Group Summary:
The addition by NMDA of the operational datastore as a new datastore, was
probably the most controversial piece of the RFC. RESTCONF has never dealt with
an operational datastore, and interaction with the new datastore, both by
non-NMDA and NMDA servers, and the implications thereof, generated the most
amount of discussion in the WG, and the resulting updates.
But this RFC remained in the shadows of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf. Most
of the discussions happened in the context of the NETCONF draft, with this
draft only referred to as changes specifically impacted RESTCONF. As a result,
the draft got lesser but sufficient attention.
Document Quality:
[Some context to why NMDA came about. Non-NMDA implementation of NETCONF and
RESTCONF, do not reflect the operational state of a configuration that had been
applied. That issue was raised by Google. But rather than working with the WG,
and possibly implementing it, it decided to define and implement its own
protocol.]
There has been at least one person who has come out on the mailing list stating
that they have implemented the updates for NMDA or are planning to. Those that
have already implemented the non-NMDA version of RESTCONF are probably waiting
to see adoption and requests for NMDA supported datastore.
Andy Bierman, one of the original authors of RESTCONF, provided the most amount
of review, participated in the discussion that ensued, and as a result caused
the updates on the document.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Mahesh Jethanandani is the Document Shepherd, 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 reviewed the document and provided comments on the draft,
which the authors addressed in their latest update.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breath of
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.
No, the document does not need review from a particular or from a broader
perspective.
(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.
The Document Shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues with the
document.
(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, each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to
the 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 against 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 consensus amongst a small group of individuals, with a few other
individuals providing comments and reviews. The rest of the WG has been largely
silent, which has been the case with the WG for this 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.)
Nobody has threatened or appealed or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
Where there was a disagreement, as it related to 'with-default' behavior, the
WG discussed and came up with language that was added to the draft.
(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.
The Document Shepherd ran idnits on the document, which revealed some issues,
but they are not issues with the document as much as they are with the tool.
See comments embedded with [ds]
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8040, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
[ds] The abstract does mention that this document updates RFC8040.
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates 2, but the
header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.
[ds] First of the document only updates one RFC, RFC8040, not two. And it
mentions that in the header.
-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8342, but
the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.
[ds] The document does not update RFC8342. Clearly, this is a tools issue.
Miscellaneous warnings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even
if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
ID-Checklist requires).
[ds] The Document Shepherd believes that the tool is confused about the new
text provided by RFC8174.
-- The document date (April 20, 2018) is 5 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
[ds] This is not an issue.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--).
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document does not require any formal reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes, all references within the document have been identified as normative
references. There are no informative references.
(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 are no normative references that are not ready or in an unclear state.
(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.
The publication of this document updates RFC8040, which is mentioned in the
title of the document, and is listed in the Abstract and 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 requests two capability identifier URNs to be added to the
"RESTCONF Capability URNs" defined in RFC8040. The new capability identifiers
have been clearly documented.
(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.
There are no new IANA registries requested by this document.
(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.
The document has no YANG model or XML examples that needed reviews or automated
checks. It defines the path for the new datastores identified by NMDA, and
those look correct.