I have completed the shepherd review of the YANG Patch 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:
This draft defines YANG Patch, a method by which configuration can be modified on a device. It also defines a media type that can be used with HTTP Patch method to perform the YANG Patch.
Working Group Summary
This document is a companion document to YANG 1.1 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis) and is meant to be used with YANG 1.1. It describes a method for applying patch to configuration datastores.
There were no open issues remaining in the document.
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. The document refers to a particular revision of ietf-restconf module. It should have a RFC note, asking that it be updated to reflect the revision that is assigned when that module gets approved.
The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit Claise.
(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 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
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
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.
The authors have 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
A idnits run on the document reveals the following.
== 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",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
(The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
-- The document date (March 16, 2016) is 10 days in the past. Is this
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
== Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231,
RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7158 (Obsoleted by RFC 7159)
(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. However, there is a normative reference to both RFC 6020 and draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis. Since this document will progress along with draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis, there was a question around normative reference to RFC 6020. Under this scenario, should IANA registries in RFC 6020 be moved to 6020bis, and normative reference be made to the latter document?
(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 four 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 requests a registry entry for the YANG module in the YANG Module Name registry (RFC 6020). It also defines two new MIME media types and registers one capability identifier in RESTCONF Protocol Capability URNs registry.
(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 http://www.yangvalidator.com/ to verify that the YANG module within the draft has no warnings or errors. The YANG module in the draft references ietf-restconf module, which the website could not find. Note to Benoit, I will work offline with pyang to see if I can validate the module.