Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Library draft. I believe the
document is well written, easy to read and ready for publication.

(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 document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates it as
such in the document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This draft presents YANG Library, which provides information about all the YANG
modules used by the network management server. Previously, this information was
included as part of hello message exchange and even then it did not provide all
the information, e.g. revision date of the deviation modules, information on
submodules and their revisions.

Working Group Summary

This document is a companion document to YANG 1.1
(draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) although it does not preclude its use with YANG
1.0. By caching the information, clients can minimize retrieval of this
frequently changing information from the server.

There were 14 issues that were opened on the draft. At this point all are

Document Quality

This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF
meetings and on the mailing list.

The document is short and well written. It has one nit in the IANA
consideration section, where it refers to NETMOD WG instead of NETCONF WG.


The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit

(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 have followed the progression of the document through the
WG, and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed
outstanding comments in the latest draft version.

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

The document shepherds does not have any concerns about the amount of review
the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties.

(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 does not need review from any additional parties.

(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.

No, the Document Shepherds do not have any specific concerns.

(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.

There authors confirmed on the mailing list that there are no IPRs related to
the draft.

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

No IPR disclosures have been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus from a diverse set of individuals, who have voiced
support for the document.

(10) 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

A idnits run on the document reveals the following warning.

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

     RFC 2119, paragraph 2:
        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
     ID-Checklist requires).

The document makes a reference to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09. There is a
later revision (-11) available for the document.

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

No formal review criteria encountered.

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

Yes. There is a normative reference to RFC 6020 and an informative reference to
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis. Since this document is a companion document to
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, and the document is expected to progress along
with this document, would it make sense to make normative reference to

(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?


(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.


(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.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA considerations section details two changes that would be required as a
result of this draft. The first is a addition in the IETF XML registry for
which it follows the format in RFC 3688. The document also requests a registry
entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020).

(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.


(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.

A YANG module validation check was done using to
verify that the YANG module within the draft has no warnings or errors.