YANG Modules Describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore Update Notifications
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-21

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Barry Lieba for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS item and better explaining the design in response to my COMMENT.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this very useful piece of work even if I only had time to browse through it.

First time in my life that I see the use of 'centiseconds' as a unit ;-)

Thanks for using RFC 8792 for line continuation.

Regards

-éric

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Barry Leiba for the secdir review.

Section 1

  Implementation-time information is needed by Network Management
  [...]
  new network node type can be introduced into the network.

  Implementation-time information is needed by system integrators.
  [...]
  node type sometimes depends on these management possibilities.

Commenting here since I read this draft after
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format, but there seems to be
pretty strong overlap between the discussion of how it's expensive to
require NMS implementors to have correclty configured nodes available,
the need for operators to have information about device capabilities
for purchasing decisions, etc.  It would be good to check that the
specific language used to describe these scenarios is in agreement
across documents, to the extent possible.  (The phrasing in this
document is probably a better starting point for the convergence, in my
opinion.)

Section 4.2

        1) search for a datastore-capabilities list entry for
        the specific datastore. When stating a specific capability, the
        relative path for any specific capability must be the same
        under the system-capabilities container and under the
        per-node-capabilities list: the same grouping for defining
        the capabilities MUST be used.

It's a little surprising to find the "MUST use same grouping"
requirement buried in the procedure for finding a capability value for a
specific data node in a specific datastore.

Section 5.2

          leaf minimum-update-period {
            [...]
            description
              "Indicates the minimal update period that is
                supported for a 'periodic' subscription.

                A subscription request to the selected data nodes with
                a smaller period than what this leaf specifies is
                likely to result in a 'period-unsupported' error.";
            [...]
          }
          leaf-list supported-update-period {
            [...]
            description
              "Supported update period values for a 'periodic'
                subscription.

                A subscription request to the selected data nodes with a
                period not included in the leaf-list will result in a
                'period-unsupported' error.";

Is it intended that these disagree on whether it is "likely to result"
or "will result" in a period-unsupported error?

        leaf-list supported-excluded-change-type {
          if-feature "yp:on-change";
          type union {
            type enumeration {
              enum none {
                value -2;
                description
                  "None of the change types can be excluded.";
              }
              enum all {
                value -1;
                description
                  "Any combination of change types can be excluded.";
              }
            }
            type yp:change-type;

It seems like this allows for some nonsensical edge cases, like a list
that includes both "none" and "any", or all the actual values from RFC
8641 as well as "none", etc.  Do we need to say anything about how to
handle such invalid scenarios?

Section 6

I agree with Roman that it would be nice to be able to say something
about the potential scope of security considerations for future
augmentations, if nothing else to aid authors of such future
augmentations in documenting their own security considerations.

NITS

Section 4.2, 5.2

I think only one "" tag is needed.

[Ballot comment]
Thank to Kent Watsen for the shepherd writeup. I was initially concerned about the Datatracker "6 YANG Errors!!! 11 Warnings!!!!" messages, but I see that Kent has checked it with a newer linter.

[Ballot discuss]
The text contains contradictions on how to handle implementation-time use case that might use the YANG file format.

(a) Section 2. “The file MUST be available already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend on a live network node.  E.g., download from product website.”

(b) Section 2. “The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  … The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users”

(c) Section 2.  “When that data is in file format, data should be protected against modification or unauthorized access using normal file handling mechanisms.”

(a) – (c) cannot all be satisfied at the same time.  (b) seems to only apply to the run-time use cases.  (a) and (b) seem to apply to the implementation time use cases.  Please make this clearer. 

Per (c), it might be clearer to keep this text, but also noting that using the YANG file format inherits all of the security considerations of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format which has additional considerations about read protections; and distinguishes between data at rest and in motion.

[Ballot discuss]
The text contains contradictions on how to handle implementation-time use case that might use the YANG file format.

(a) Section 2. “The file MUST be available already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend on a live network node.  E.g., download from product website.”

(b) Section 2. “The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  … The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users”

(c) Section 2.  “When that data is in file format, data should be protected against modification or unauthorized access using normal file handling mechanisms.”

(a) – (c) cannot all be satisfied at the same time.  (b) seems to only apply to the run-time use cases.  (a) and (b) seem to apply to the implementation time use cases.  Please make this clearer. 

Per (c), it might be clearer to keep this text, but also noting that using the YANG file format inherits all of the security considerations of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format which has additional considerations about read protections; and distinguishing between data at rest and in motion.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Barry Lieba for the SECDIR review.

** Section 6.  I’m surprised by the statement that “The data in these modules is not security sensitive” given that the specific YANG module that might be annotated is unknown.  Would it be possible for an attacker to glean any topology information by reviewing the notification properties of module?  Could they poll this interface to inform real-time targeting since Section 1 notes that “capabilities might change during run-time”?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the efforts put into this specification.

I have questions/comment. Section 2 says -

    For the implementation-time use case: Capabilities SHOULD be provided by the implementer as YANG instance data files complying to [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format]. The file MUST be available already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend on a live network node. E.g., download from product website.

How should I interpret this combination of SHOULD and MUST? Is it that if the implementer provides the capabilities then the file must be available at the implementation time? if the answer is yes, then it would be good to make it clear in the text.

[Ballot comment]
The SHOULDs in Sections 2 and 4 seem bare to me.  Why might an implementer opt not to follow them?  SHOULD does allow a choice, after all.  Some guidance here might be helpful.

The tag at the bottom of Section 4 appears twice.

The "Note" at the top of the example in Appendix B should probably refer to RFC 8792, as Appendix A does.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request.  This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: ietf-notification-capabilities
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-notification-capabilities
Prefix: notc
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.

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-10-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Kent Watsen , draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Modules describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore Update Notifications) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Modules describing Capabilities
for Systems and Datastore Update
  Notifications'
  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 2021-10-01. 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 defines two YANG modules,"ietf-system-capabilities" and
  "ietf-notification-capabilities".

  The module "ietf-system-capabilities" provides a placeholder
  structure that can be used to discover YANG related system
  capabilities for servers.  The module can be used to report
  capability information from the server at run-time or implementation-
  time, by making use of the YANG Instance Data File Format.

  The module "ietf-notification-capabilities" augments "ietf-system-
  capabilities" to specify capabilities related to Subscription to YANG
  Notifications for Datastore Updates.




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



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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  Proposed Standard.



(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:

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.

Shepherd (from the Abstract):

  This document defines two YANG modules,"ietf-system-capabilities" and
  "ietf-notification-capabilities".

  The module "ietf-system-capabilities" provides a placeholder
  structure that can be used to discover YANG related system
  capabilities for servers.  The module can be used to report
  capability information from the server at run-time or implementation-
  time, per the YANG Instance Data File Format.

  The module "ietf-notification-capabilities" augments "ietf-system-
  capabilities" to specify capabilities related to Subscription to YANG
  Notifications for Datastore Updates.


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?

Shepherd:

  There was nothing in the process worth noting.  The authors
  originally thought the solution should just define capabilities
  for notifications only, but the WGLC expanded the scope to
  define system-level capabilities that the notification-specific
  capabilities augmented into.


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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of any implementations nor commitments.

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29



Personnel:

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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is Robert Wilton.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -14 thru -16 updates.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --ietf --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang

  Warning: Datatracker's YANG validator says that there are six errors,
            but I'm ignoring these because Datatracker is using an old
            version of `yanglint` (1.6.7, I'm using 1.9.2), and the
            `pyang` reported "issue" is not an issue.



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not, anymore, have concerns about
  the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
  performed.

  That said, please be aware that the document was in an
  attrociuos state when the shepherd was first asked to
  review it.  The shepherd was suprised that the document
  could exit WGLC is such a shape, suggesting that the
  WG did not review the document carefully enough.

  The shepherd requested a number of changes to bring
  the document into alignment with IETF standards:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Jk_6GKJQdUTKHBbbrjuPuBWCB2Y/



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need review from a particular or 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this 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?

Shepherd:

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Imlab7mF1FOpROqDGZzNTloEMsg



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

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document might be characterized
  as a strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
  being silent.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -16, which has one "warning" and one
  "comment", both of which are innocuous.



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

Shepherd:

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29/



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to by correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  There are no downward normative references.



(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.

Shepherd:

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



(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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the two YANG modules
  and their module's namespace.  The registrations look proper, except
  the following change should be applied to reflect latest guidance:

    OLD: Registrant Contact: The NETCONF WG of the IETF.
    NEW: Registrant Contact: The IESG



(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.

Shepherd:

  None of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang         
      $ pyang --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd tested the formatting using the commands:

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

  Both of which produced NO OUTPUT.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  Proposed Standard.



(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:

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.

Shepherd (from the Abstract):

  This document defines two YANG modules,"ietf-system-capabilities" and
  "ietf-notification-capabilities".

  The module "ietf-system-capabilities" provides a placeholder
  structure that can be used to discover YANG related system
  capabilities for servers.  The module can be used to report
  capability information from the server at run-time or implementation-
  time, per the YANG Instance Data File Format.

  The module "ietf-notification-capabilities" augments "ietf-system-
  capabilities" to specify capabilities related to Subscription to YANG
  Notifications for Datastore Updates.


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?

Shepherd:

  There was nothing in the process worth noting.  The authors
  originally thought the solution should just define capabilities
  for notifications only, but the WGLC expanded the scope to
  define system-level capabilities that the notification-specific
  capabilities augmented into.


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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of any implementations nor commitments.

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29



Personnel:

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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is Robert Wilton.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -14 thru -16 updates.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang         
      $ pyang --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not, anymore, have concerns about
  the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
  performed.

  That said, please be aware that the document was in an
  attrociuos state when the shepherd was first asked to
  review it.  The shepherd was suprised that the document
  could exit WGLC is such a shape, suggesting that the
  WG did not review the document carefully enough.

  The shepherd requested a number of changes to bring
  the document into alignment with IETF standards:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Jk_6GKJQdUTKHBbbrjuPuBWCB2Y/



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need review from a particular or 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this 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?

Shepherd:

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Imlab7mF1FOpROqDGZzNTloEMsg



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

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document might be characterized
  as a strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
  being silent.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -16, which has one "warning" and one
  "comment", both of which are innocuous.



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

Shepherd:

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29/



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to by correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  There are no downward normative references.



(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.

Shepherd:

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



(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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the two YANG modules
  and their module's namespace.  The registrations look proper, except
  the following change should be applied to reflect latest guidance:

    OLD: Registrant Contact: The NETCONF WG of the IETF.
    NEW: Registrant Contact: The IESG



(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.

Shepherd:

  None of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang         
      $ pyang --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd tested the formatting using the commands:

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

  Both of which produced NO OUTPUT.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  Proposed Standard.



(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:

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.

Shepherd (from the Abstract):

  This document defines two YANG modules,"ietf-system-capabilities" and
  "ietf-notification-capabilities".

  The module "ietf-system-capabilities" provides a placeholder
  structure that can be used to discover YANG related system
  capabilities for servers.  The module can be used to report
  capability information from the server at run-time or implementation-
  time, per the YANG Instance Data File Format.

  The module "ietf-notification-capabilities" augments "ietf-system-
  capabilities" to specify capabilities related to Subscription to YANG
  Notifications for Datastore Updates.


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?

Shepherd:

  There was nothing in the process worth noting.  The authors
  originally thought the solution should just define capabilities
  for notifications only, but the WGLC expanded the scope to
  define system-level capabilities that the notification-specific
  capabilities augmented into.


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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of any implementations nor commitments.

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29



Personnel:

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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is Robert Wilton.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -14 thru -16 updates.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang         
      $ pyang --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not, anymore, have concerns about
  the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
  performed.

  That said, please be aware that the document was in an
  attrociuos state when the shepherd was first asked to
  review it.  The shepherd was suprised that the document
  could exit WGLC is such a shape, suggesting that the
  WG did not review the document carefully enough.

  The shepherd requested a number of changes to bring
  the document into alignment with IETF standards:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Jk_6GKJQdUTKHBbbrjuPuBWCB2Y/



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need review from a particular or 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this 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?

Shepherd:

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Imlab7mF1FOpROqDGZzNTloEMsg



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

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document might be characterized
  as a strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
  being silent.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -16, which has one "warning" and one
  "comment", both of which are innocuous.



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

Shepherd:

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29/



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to by correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  There are no downward normative references.



(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.

Shepherd:

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



(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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the two YANG modules
  and their module's namespace.  The registrations look proper, except
  the following change should be applied to reflect latest guidance:

    OLD: Registrant Contact: The NETCONF WG of the IETF.
    NEW: Registrant Contact: The IESG



(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.

Shepherd:

  None of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of both modules
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang         
      $ pyang --strict ietf-system-capabilities@2021-04-02.yang

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang
      $ pyang --strict ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang


(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd tested the formatting using the commands:

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-system-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang > new.yang && diff ietf-notification-capabilities\@2021-04-02.yang new.yang

  Both of which produced NO OUTPUT.