(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
This draft is requesting a Proposed Standard and it indicates it as such in the
title.
(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.
This draft extends the "get-bootstrapping-data" RPC defined in
[RFC8572] to include an optional certificate signing request (CSR)
[RFC2986], enabling a bootstrapping device to additionally obtain an
identity certificate (e.g., an LDevID [Std-802.1AR-2018]) as part of
the "onboarding information" response provided in the RPC-reply.
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?
This document was reviewed in both IETF meeting (physical and virtual), and on
the NETCONF WG mailing list. A YANG doctors review has been requested, and any
comments received from that review will be incorporated into the document.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani and the AD is Rob 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.
The document shepherd has followed the progression of the document through the
WG and has reviewed the document. As this time, the document has addressed all
outstanding comments and as a document shepherd I believe the document is ready
for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document has been presented to the WG a few times, but it did not receive
many comments during those presentations or as it went through WGLC. That could
be a reflection of the fact that the authors are authorities and therefore well
versed of the topic while presenting a high quality document. It could also be
a reflection of the fact that the document has a lot of security aspects, and
the WG does not have many experts in the security field.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
The document shepherd has requested a YANG doctors review for the YANG module
in the draft. The document shepherd contemplated getting a security review done
on the document. The authors are security experts, and a review request would
probably result in the authors reviewing their own document. Therefore the
review was skipped.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The document shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues that needs
the attention of the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG beyond what has
already been identified in (5).
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, all the authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPRs related
to the document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed against this document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The document has been discussed both on the mailing list and in the WG
meetings. The number of people who have contributed actively to the document
has been small (mostly the authors) with ample opportunity given for folks to
comment on the changes in the document.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(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.
A run of idnits outputs these errors/warnings, though they are not
unprecedented.
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8572, but
the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention
RFC8572 though, so this could be OK.
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'ITU.X690.2015'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2986
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
A yang doctors review has been requested and should be forthcoming.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(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?
No.
(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.
As identified by idnits, there are two references to downward normative
references.
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.
'ITU.X690.2015'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2986
(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.
This document updates RFC 8572, and it indicates it so in the title page, in
the abstract and in the introduction section of the document.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
This document registers one URI and one YANG module. The URI registry is for
the "ns" sub registry of the IETF XML Registry maintained at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/xml-registry.xhtml#ns. The YANG
Module registry request is for the YANG Module Names Registry maintained at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml.
(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.
None.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The document shepherd has run pyang/yanglint to validate the model. He has also
validated the JSON examples extracted from the draft against the module defined
in the document. He has run idnits to identify some issues that the tool has
identified.