Updates to NETCONF Transport Port Numbers
draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-07

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers and RFC 9900, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you previous discussions with the IANA port experts on the requested IANA actions, and the follow-up with me to refine the request to IANA this document.

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you previous discussions with the IANA port experts on the requested IANA actions, and the follow-up with me to refine the request to IANA this document.

I have some topics I'd like too DISCUSS to see if this document could be improved. I hope these are simple to address, and if addressed I intend to ballot "YES".

1. The para starting "However, three..."  seems to require some small editorial work: The current document identifies three set of port usage, and (I think correctly requests 2 of these are "released" because those protocols have not been deployed, but it mentions "3" in the text.

2. A statement is made: "All these assignments are undesirable." I am unsure what it means for the IETF to declare something as undesirable, and would like to discuss the reason behind this sentence, because think that this text ought to be updated. For instance, it could say use of these ports to configure security policies may be problematic, or maybe give some other reason?

3. Please check carefully the words used to describe the action proposed. At various places the document speaks of de-assigning and releasing. (Note to the IESG: The result of this RFC will be to trigger an IANA policy to reserve these ports, which may allow future use, per Section 8.2 of [RFC6335].)

4. I note the Security Considerations does not introduce a new vulnerability, but maybe this ought to consider also adding the advice that security policies that are based around using the previous port assignments need to be updated to not associate these ports with the named services.

[Ballot comment]

        This document releases NETCONF-related port number IANA
        assignments that have not stood the test of time.

"releases" and "not stood the test of time" are not clear descriptions for an Abstract.
I would more think in terms of "this document deprecates  and releases
their assigned port numbers X, Y and Z back to ."

I find the mentioning of NETCONF over SSH and port 830 in this case a bit confusing, as if
it is also an example that is being obsoleted. Perhaps the text can more clearly state
that these other ones are obsoleted/unused and that the deployment has shifted to
NETCONF over SSH and port 830. And is that true? Is it not using NETCONF over SSH using
port 22?

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-06
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-06.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/

I have no objection to promotion of this document.

Many thanks to Barry Leiba for his ARTART review, from which I will quote:

    It’s good to clean up these unused port-number assignments, and the document is
    clear about the whats and whys and the fact that they’re confirmed as having
    never been deployed.

8/14: Send email to Med, with Gorry in Cc to drop the deassignment of 830/udp from the draft, and only keep 831/tcp, 831/udp, 832/tcp, and 832/udp in the draft.

Feedback from one of the port experts:

This document serves no useful purpose. At this time, System port number assignments have already been effectively deprecated by RFC7605.

There have been 15 new port numbers assigned out of the available ~275 in 2008, and since RFC7605 was published in 2015, only 7 in the past 10 years. I.e., the rate of new assignments has actually held rather steady. At the current rate, we will not need to re-assign numbers currently de-assigned until roughly 371 years.

There is absolutely no need to de-assign the protocols not currently used. Further, with the advent of QUIC, the potential to use TCP protocols over UDP increases.

Requests to de-assign an entire number are welcome but should be made clearly and explicitly for the entire set of transports, but those to de-assign the UDP part of a TCP/UDP pair are not appropriate, IMO.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

for:

Service Name: netconf-ssh
Port Number: 830

the entry for 830/tcp will remain unchanged and the entry for 830/udp will be marked "removed by [ RFC-to-be ] on [date-TBD]"

Second, also in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

for:

Service Name: netconf-beep
Port Number: 831

the entry for both 831/tcp and 831/udp will both be marked "removed by [ RFC-to-be ] on [date-TBD]" and have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the reference.

Third, also in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/

for:

Service Name: netconfsoaphttp
Port Number: 832

and:

Service Name: netconfsoapbeep
Port Number: 833

the entry for both 832/tcp, 832/udp, 833/tcp and 833/udp will all be marked "removed by [ RFC-to-be ] on [date-TBD]" and have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the reference.

We have initiated expert review of these changes via a separate ticket. This review must be completed before we can mark this document as IANA OK.

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

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-07-15):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (NETCONF Transport Port Numbers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'NETCONF Transport Port Numbers'
  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 2025-07-15. 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 releases NETCONF-related port number IANA assignments
  that have not stood the test of time (e.g., assignments for Historic
  NETCONF-related protocols).

Discussion Venues

  This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

  Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Configuration
  Working Group mailing list (netconf@ietf.org), which is archived at
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/.

  Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
  https://github.com/boucadair/netconf-port-numbers.




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



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

# 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: Strong consensus


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

SHEPHERD: None


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: None


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: N/A


## 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: No interactions with other WGs


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: No external reviews are needed.


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: No YANG module.


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: N/A (there is no code in the document)


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

SHEPHERD: Yes, the document is ready


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: Despite the last sentence above not parsing well (please fix the template), this document impacts no other IETF Areas.


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: Standards Track


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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: N/A


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: Yes


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: None (no idnits errors)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

SHEPHERD: Everything looks correct.


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: There are none.


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 are none.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

SHEPHERD: There are none.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

SHEPHERD: No.  RFC 4743 and 4744 are already "Historic".  As an aside, it is
unfortunate that there isn't a mechanism to automatically reclaim ports when
documents become historic.


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 IANA Considerations section looks good to me.


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: N/A


Kent // shepherd


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Strong consensus


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

SHEPHERD: None


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: None


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: N/A


## 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: No interactions with other WGs


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: No external reviews are needed.


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: No YANG module.


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: N/A (there is no code in the document)


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

SHEPHERD: Yes, the document is ready


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: Despite the last sentence above not parsing well (please fix the template), this document impacts no other IETF Areas.


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: Standards Track


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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: N/A


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: Yes


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: None (no idnits errors)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

SHEPHERD: Everything looks correct.


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: There are none.


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 are none.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

SHEPHERD: There are none.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

SHEPHERD: No.  RFC 4743 and 4744 are already "Historic".  As an aside, it is
unfortunate that there isn't a mechanism to automatically reclaim ports when
documents become historic.


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 IANA Considerations section looks good to me.


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: N/A


Kent // shepherd


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Strong consensus


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

SHEPHERD: None


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: None


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: N/A


## 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: No interactions with other WGs


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: No external reviews are needed.


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: No YANG module.


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: N/A (there is no code in the document)


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

SHEPHERD: Yes, the document is ready


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: Despite the last sentence above not parsing well (please fix the template), this document impacts no other IETF Areas.


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: Standards Track


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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: N/A


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: Yes


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: None (no idnits errors)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

SHEPHERD: Everything looks correct, though I question if "draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4743-rfc4744-to-historic" should be referenced at all, since it is Expired (produces a down-ref), and serves no purpose as RFCs 4743 and 4744 are already Historic. No references need to be given but, if a reference is desired, a reference to the IESG Minutes (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2012-iesg-19-201210111530) showing when the IESG put these documents to Historic would be better than a reference to the expired draft.


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: There are none.


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 are none.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

SHEPHERD: There are none.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

SHEPHERD: No.  RFC 4743 and 4744 are already "Historic".  Stripping their port
assignments is a nothing burger.  It is unfortunate that their isn't an equivalent
"IANA Considerations" review automatically triggered when an RFC is made Historic.
"Historic" is defined here (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2.4).


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 IANA Considerations section looks good to me.


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: N/A


Kent // shepherd


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Strong consensus


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

SHEPHERD: None


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: None


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: N/A


## 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: No interactions with other WGs


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: No external reviews are needed.


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: No YANG module.


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: N/A (there is no code in the document)


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

SHEPHERD: Yes, the document is ready


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: Despite the last sentence above not parsing well (please fix the template), this document impacts no other IETF Areas.


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: Standards Track


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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: N/A


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: Yes


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: None (no idnits errors)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

SHEPHERD: Everything looks correct, though I question if "draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4743-rfc4744-to-historic" should be referenced at all, since it expired, and since may be an invalid reference?  Despite this draft having expired, RFCs 4743 and 4744 are currently Historic.


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: There are none.


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 are none.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

SHEPHERD: There are none.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

SHEPHERD: Hmmm, there may be an issue here.  RFC 4743 and 4744 are listed as "Historic".  This document removes their port allocations.  Is this okay?


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 IANA Considerations section looks good to me.


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: N/A


Kent // shepherd


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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: Strong consensus


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

SHEPHERD: None


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: None


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: N/A


## 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: No interactions with other WGs


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: No external reviews are needed.


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: No YANG module.


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: N/A (there is no code in the document)


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

SHEPHERD: Yes, the document is ready


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: Despite the last sentence above not parsing well (please fix the template), this document impacts no other IETF Areas.


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: Standards Track


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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: N/A


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: Yes


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: None (no idnits errors)


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

SHEPHERD: Everything looks correct, though I question if "draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4743-rfc4744-to-historic" should be referenced at all, since it expired, and since may be an invalid reference?


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: There are none.


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 are none.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

SHEPHERD: There are none.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

SHEPHERD: Hmmm, there may be an issue here.  RFC 4743 and 4744 are not listed yet as obsolete.  Please note that draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4743-rfc4744-to-historic expired, so these two RFCs are (IMO) still valid.  This document removes their port allocations.  Is this okay?


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 IANA Considerations section looks good to me.


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: N/A


Kent // shepherd


[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/