UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-26

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 12 September 2025.*

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?

Yes, this work has benefited from the discussion of UDP transport notification over years
and is a replacement draft for both draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel and draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
and represents a broad agreement.


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

No controversy. The need of congestion control
was brought up during TSVART review and discussed in IETF 119 NETCONF session and rough
consensus had been reached on detailed level of congestion control.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are 4 known open source implementations and 3 implementations from network vendors, which have been
documented in section 9 of rev-22 of this document.

## 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.

This document uses transport technology in WIT area and has been reviewed by TSVART
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/J8YeAHqnqIiyj-QqXdBx4nToXUw/
The comments from TSVART have been addressed in v-24 and confirmed on the NETCONF
ML https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/0FwQWSxxi64r-i5AyqjskRvXC0M/.
Additional comments from WIT Area AD Gorry have been addressed in v-25 and confirmed on the NETCONF ML:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KbOfowwjF3kgQPMtPwQAZiQYukY/.

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.

This document has been reviewed by YANG Doctor, the review result is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-20-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/
No message states that the YANG Doctors review is cleared.

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?

3 pyang command tools "pyang --ietf ","pyang --lint" and "yanglint" have been used to validate
v-25 of YANG module included in this document, there are no errors or warnings to be found.

  Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes

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.

Manual review of the XML examples in Appendix A. There are no errors or warnings to be found.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

N/A

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?

Proposed Standard. Because Capabilities for high frequency UDP based Data Collection are needed by
both NETCONF clients and RESTCONF client. The "Intended RFC Status" in Datatracker has to be set to
reflect this intent.

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.

All authors have responded not being aware of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/VQUz-x7mEWVmdxwG_ZZAbN-mlUk/

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.

Yes. The document has 5 authors.

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.)

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (3 July 2025) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP195'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP230'

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-14

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

I think Outdated reference draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif needs to be changed
into v-15. For Obsolete normative reference RFC6347， I believe it is intentional
to reference both TLS1.2 and TLS1.3 therefore this error is innocuous and can be ignored.

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

References are cited properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

None. This document adds dependency to two other documents: [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server].
Both documents will be submitted to the IESG in parallel for publication.

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.

No change.

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]).

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
three new registries are correctly defined and consistent with the body of this document.

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.

N/A

[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 12 September 2025.*

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?

Yes, this work has benefited from the discussion of UDP transport notification over years
and is a replacement draft for both draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel and draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
and represents a broad agreement.


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

No controversy. The need of congestion control
was brought up during TSVART review and discussed in IETF 119 NETCONF session and rough
consensus had been reached on detailed level of congestion control.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are 4 known open source implementations and 3 implementations from network vendors, which have been
documented in section 9 of rev-22 of this document.

## 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.

This document uses transport technology in WIT area and has been reviewed by TSVART
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/J8YeAHqnqIiyj-QqXdBx4nToXUw/
The comments from TSVART have been addressed in v-24 and confirmed on the NETCONF
ML https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/0FwQWSxxi64r-i5AyqjskRvXC0M/.
Additional comments from WIT Area AD Gorry have been addressed in v-25 and confirmed on the NETCONF ML:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KbOfowwjF3kgQPMtPwQAZiQYukY/.

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.

This document has been reviewed by YANG Doctor, the review result is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-20-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/
No message states that the YANG Doctors review is cleared.

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?

3 pyang command tools "pyang --ietf ","pyang --lint" and "yanglint" have been used to validate
v-25 of YANG module included in this document, there are no errors or warnings to be found.

  Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes

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.

Manual review of the XML examples in Appendix A. There are no errors or warnings to be found.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

N/A

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?

Proposed Standard. Because Capabilities for high frequency UDP based Data Collection are needed by
both NETCONF clients and RESTCONF client. The "Intended RFC Status" in Datatracker has to be set to
reflect this intent.

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.

All authors have responded not being aware of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/VQUz-x7mEWVmdxwG_ZZAbN-mlUk/

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.

Yes. The document has 5 authors.

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.)

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (3 July 2025) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP195'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP230'

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-14

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

I think Outdated reference draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif needs to be changed
into v-15. For Obsolete normative reference RFC6347， I believe it is intentional
to reference both TLS1.2 and TLS1.3 therefore this error is innocuous and can be ignored.

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

References are cited properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

None. This document adds dependency to two other documents: [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server].
Both documents will be submitted to the IESG in parallel for publication.

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.

No change.

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]).

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
three new registries are correctly defined and consistent with the body of this document.

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.

N/A

[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 12 September 2025.*

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?

Yes, this work has benefited from the discussion of UDP transport notification over years
and is a replacement draft for both draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel and draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
and represents a broad agreement.


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

No controversy. The need of congestion control
was brought up during TSVART review and discussed in IETF 119 NETCONF session and rough
consensus had been reached on detailed level of congestion control.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are 4 known open source implementations and 3 implementations from network vendors, which have been
documented in section 9 of rev-22 of this document.

## 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.

This document uses transport technology in WIT area and has been reviewed by TSVART
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/J8YeAHqnqIiyj-QqXdBx4nToXUw/
The comments from TSVART have been addressed in v-24 and confirmed on the NETCONF
ML https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/0FwQWSxxi64r-i5AyqjskRvXC0M/.
Additional comments from WIT Area AD Gorry needs to be revolved
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/n9TyQPxx6gJS0m67Yxh_futATT0/.

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.

This document has been reviewed by YANG Doctor, the review result is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-20-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/
No message states that the YANG Doctors review is cleared.

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?

3 pyang command tools "pyang --ietf ","pyang --lint" and "yanglint" have been used to validate
v-22 of YANG module included in this document, there are no errors or warnings to be found.
But there appears to be a author list mismatch by checking YANG module, i.e.,
Authors list embedded in the YANG Data Model in section 7.2 is not consistent with
author list in the front page for this document.

  Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes

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.

Manual review of the XML examples in Appendix A. There are no errors or warnings to be found.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

N/A

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?

Proposed Standard. Because Capabilities for high frequency UDP based Data Collection are needed by
both NETCONF clients and RESTCONF client. The "Intended RFC Status" in Datatracker has to be set to
reflect this intent.

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.

All authors have responded not being aware of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/VQUz-x7mEWVmdxwG_ZZAbN-mlUk/

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.

Yes. The document has 5 authors.

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.)

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (3 July 2025) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP195'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP230'

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-14

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

I think Outdated reference draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif needs to be changed
into v-15. For Obsolete normative reference RFC6347， I believe it is intentional
to reference both TLS1.2 and TLS1.3 therefore this error is innocuous and can be ignored.

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

References are cited properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

None. This document adds dependency to two other documents: [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server].
Both documents will be submitted to the IESG in parallel for publication.

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.

No change.

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]).

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
three new registries are correctly defined and consistent with the body of this document.

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.

N/A

[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 12 September 2025.*

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?

Yes, this work has benefited from the discussion of UDP transport notification over years
and is a replacement draft for both draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel and draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
and represents a broad agreement.


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

No controversy. The need of congestion control
was brought up during TSVART review and discussed in IETF 119 NETCONF session and rough
consensus had been reached on detailed level of congestion control.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are 4 known open source implementations and 3 implementations from network vendors, which have been
documented in section 9 of rev-22 of this document.

## 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.

This document uses transport technology in WIT area and has been reviewed by TSVART
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/J8YeAHqnqIiyj-QqXdBx4nToXUw/
The comments from TSVART have been addressed in v-12.

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.

This document has been reviewed by YANG Doctor, the review result is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-20-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/
No message states that the YANG Doctors review is cleared.

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?

3 pyang command tools "pyang --ietf ","pyang --lint" and "yanglint" have been used to validate
v-22 of YANG module included in this document, there are no errors or warnings to be found.
But there appears to be a author list mismatch by checking YANG module, i.e.,
Authors list embedded in the YANG Data Model in section 7.2 is not consistent with
author list in the front page for this document.

  Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes

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.

Manual review of the XML examples in Appendix A. There are no errors or warnings to be found.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

N/A

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?

Proposed Standard. Because Capabilities for high frequency UDP based Data Collection are needed by
both NETCONF clients and RESTCONF client. The "Intended RFC Status" in Datatracker has to be set to
reflect this intent.

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.

All authors have responded not being aware of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/VQUz-x7mEWVmdxwG_ZZAbN-mlUk/

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.

Yes. The document has 5 authors.

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.)

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (3 July 2025) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP195'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP230'

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-14

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

I think Outdated reference draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif needs to be changed
into v-15. For Obsolete normative reference RFC6347， I believe it is intentional
to reference both TLS1.2 and TLS1.3 therefore this error is innocuous and can be ignored.

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

References are cited properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

None. This document adds dependency to two other documents: [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server].
Both documents will be submitted to the IESG in parallel for publication.

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.

No change.

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]).

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
three new registries are correctly defined and consistent with the body of this document.

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.

N/A

[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 12 September 2025.*

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?

Yes, this work has benefited from the discussion of UDP transport notification over years
and is a replacement draft for both draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel and draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
and represents a broad agreement.


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

No controversy. The need of congestion control
was brought up during TSVART review and discussed in IETF 119 NETCONF session and rough
consensus had been reached on detailed level of congestion control.

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.)

No.

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)?

There are 4 known open source implementations and 3 implementations from network vendors, which have been
documented in section 9 of rev-22 of this document.

## 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.

This document uses transport technology in WIT area and has been reviewed by TSVART
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/J8YeAHqnqIiyj-QqXdBx4nToXUw/
The comments from TSVART have been addressed in v-12.

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.

This document has been reviewed by YANG Doctor, the review result is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-20-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/
Resolution of the comments was satisfactory to the YANG Doctor.

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?

3 pyang command tools "pyang --ietf ","pyang --lint" and "yanglint" have been used to validate
v-22 of YANG module included in this document, there are no errors or warnings to be found.
But there appears to be a author list mismatch by checking YANG module, i.e.,
Authors list embedded in the YANG Data Model in section 7.2 is not consistent with
author list in the front page for this document.

  Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Yes

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.

Manual review of the XML examples in Appendix A. There are no errors or warnings to be found.

## 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?

Yes.

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?

N/A

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?

Proposed Standard. Because Capabilities for high frequency UDP based Data Collection are needed by
both NETCONF clients and RESTCONF client. The "Intended RFC Status" in Datatracker has to be set to
reflect this intent.

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.

All authors have responded not being aware of any IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/VQUz-x7mEWVmdxwG_ZZAbN-mlUk/

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.

Yes. The document has 5 authors.

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.)

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (3 July 2025) is 70 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP195'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP230'

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-14

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.

I think Outdated reference draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif needs to be changed
into v-15. For Obsolete normative reference RFC6347， I believe it is intentional
to reference both TLS1.2 and TLS1.3 therefore this error is innocuous and can be ignored.

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

References are cited properly.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

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.

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?

None. This document adds dependency to two other documents: [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server].
Both documents will be submitted to the IESG in parallel for publication.

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.

No change.

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]).

The document shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm
two existing registries (one is the "IETF XML" registry and the otheris the "YANG Module Names" registry)
are updated and correctly specified and consistent with the body of this document.The referenced IANA
registries have been clearly identified.


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.

N/A

[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/

Changed document external resources from:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)

to:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-udp-notif-transport.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-udp-notif-transport.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)

Changed document external resources from:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module= (ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]= (ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)

to:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)

Changed document external resources from:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-udp-notif@2020-04-27.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif@2020-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]=ietf-udp-notif@2020-04-27.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)

to:

yc_entry https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module= (ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang (Yang catalog entry for ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang)
yc_impact https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/impact_analysis.php?modules[]= (ietf-udp-notif-transport@2025-04-27.yang&recurse=0&rfcs=1&show_subm=1&show_dir=both (Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif)