Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-21

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

A Proposed Standard is being requested.   A proposed standard is needed
to ensure interoperability.  The title page header indicates that it is
a Standards Track 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

  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.

  From the Abstract:

     This document defines a data model for Access Control List (ACL).  An
     ACL is a user-ordered set of rules, used to configure the forwarding
     behavior in device.  Each rule is used to find a match on a packet,
     and define actions that will be performed on the packet.

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?

  The document was originally had a different primary author
  (see doc history if name is important) but then, when issues
  were raised, the author didn't have time to work on them,
  and a new set of authors came in, and decided on a different
  solution in order to resolve the issues raised.   The original
  author didn't agree with the changes and asked to be removed.
  At the moment, the document appears to have strong WG
  consensus.  The authors have been attentive to addressing
  the many issues raised over time.

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?

  There have been no implementations of this YANG module as
  of yet, as far as I'm aware.  That said, the lead developer of
  firewalls at a large vendor is an author, and has been attentive
  to implementability throughout the effort.


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.  The AD is Ignas Bagdonas.

(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 went through the "checklist" listed here: 
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate


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

  Plenty of input from operators.  The shepherd wishes that there was more
  involvement from vendors but, given how long the draft has been a 
  work-in-progress, one can only conclude that it's not something the
  vendors prioritized working on.

(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.

  There was a YANG doctor review a while back, and YANG doctors additionally
  participated during the Last Call.   Beyond YANG, there isn't a need for any
  review from a particular or broader perspective.

(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 shepherd has heard that some view the solution defined here as being
  particular to firewalls, and yet ACLs are used for other features too, thus
  using the acronym "acl" might be over-reaching a bit.

(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.

[UPDATED 5/22] IPR responses have now been received from all the authors.
  Mailman: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rGGvgA_mfmIZn4qX7zopdZWCue0
  MHonArc: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20881.html

(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 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?   

   Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent

(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 one has threatened an appeal, but the aforementioned former
  author expressed extreme discontent, though not having cycles to
  actually engage in discussion, leaves us to thinking that the author
  is in the rough.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No meaningful IDnits are found with the current version (-19).  There are
  four "weird spacing" warnings, but they are non-issues as they appear
  inside the YANG-based artwork.


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

   There was a YANG doctor review a while back, and YANG doctors 
   additionally participated during the Last Call.

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

  Yes, but isn't this always the case?  Perhaps the question is if they have
  been *correctly* identified, in which case the shepherd thinks that they
  are in -19.


(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?

   All normative references have already advanced to RFC status.


(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. 

   There are no downward normative references.


(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.

   The publication of this document will NOT change the status of any
   existing RFCs.


(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).

   Yes, the IANA Considerations section appears complete and accurate.


(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.

   This document does not define any new IANA 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.

The shepherd validated all yang modules using both the `pyang` and `yanglint`
tools.  The shepherd also validated the five XML examples in Section 4 of the
document using the `yanglint` tool.

Back