A YANG Data Model for Factory Default Settings
draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-15

[Ballot comment]
While many of the secdir reviewer's complaints stem from the YANG security
considerations boilerplate, it still seems like it would be worth some form
of response to the review.

Section 1

  This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory
  default content.  The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
  existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
  configuration process from scratch is the best option.

  A "factory-reset" RPC is defined.  When resetting a device, all
  previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
  factory default content.

nit: these two paragraphs talk about the same thing, but the next paragraph
is a different thing.  It may be better to combine these two in to a single
paragraph.

  A "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that contains the
  data to replace the contents of implemented read-write conventional
  configuration datastores at reset.  [...]

Can I suggest instead:

% A "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that reflects what the
% conventional read-write datastores would be overwritten with in the case of
% a factory-reset operation.

Section 2

                                                          All security
  sensitive data (i.e., private keys, passwords, etc.)  SHOULD be
  overwritten with zeros or a pattern before deletion.  [...]

I might suggest instead:

% When this process includes security-sensitive data such as cryptographic
% keys or passwords, it is RECOMMENDED to perform the deletion in as
% thorough a manner as possible (e.g., overwriting the physical storage
% medium with zeros and/or random bits) to reduce the risk of the sensitive
% material being recoverable.

It's probably worth noting that since this is only dymanically generated
files, any cryptographic keys that are part of the factory-installed image
will be retained (such as an IDevID certificate).

Section 3

  Following the guidelines for defining Datastores in the appendix A of
  [RFC8342], this document introduces a new optional datastore resource
  named "factory-default" that represents a preconfigured initial
  configuration that can be used to initialize the configuration of a

nit/soapbox: "preconfigured initial configuration" feels like an awkward
wording to me; perhaps "pre-set initial configuration" or "fixed initial
configuration"?

Section 4

        description
          "This read-only datastore contains the factory default
          configuration for the device used to replace the contents
          of the read-write conventional configuration datastores
          during a 'factory-reset' RPC operation.";

nit: the grammar here is off; maybe "for the device that will be used"?
(Or some adaptation of my proposed text from earlier.)

Section 6

If the factory-default configuration is an "open" one, then performing the
reset could leave the device (and thus the network!) vulnerable to attack
until it is properly configured.  The rtgdir reviewer's comments seem
related to this.

An attacker that could somehow cause the factory-reset to be performed would
cause the loss of running state/crypto keys that would potentially require a
lot of operator effort to recover (in addition to the more immediate DoS
issues).

There is some discussion in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra about
attacks that are possible when a device is restored to its factory default
state; it might be worth trying to incorporate some of that discussion in
some manner (whether inline or by reference).

  The "factory-reset" RPC can prevent any further management of the
  device if the session and client config are included in the factory
  default contents.

I'm not sure this is 100% correct.  If the factory default config overwrites
this items, then yes, it will prevent further management.  But we also say
to delete dynamic files from nonvoliatile storage, which at least to me
seems like it could include this class of items and cause the same symptoms
even if the configuration items in question are not included in the factory
default contents.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is clear, easy to read and quite useful.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs. An answer will be appreciated.

I also support Barry's comment.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

If the "factory-default" is optional (per section 3), then it may be worth to specify this quality in the abstract and in the introduction.

-- Section 2 --
What happens with the different counters in the  data store ?

Why is this a SHOULD for overwritting sensitive data and not a MUST? At least section 6 writes that "owner of the device MUST NOT rely on any sensitive data (e.g., private keys) being forensically unrecoverable"

[Ballot discuss]
Please use YANG security considerations template from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines.  Specifically (as a DISCUSS item):

** (Per the template questions “for all YANG modules you must evaluate whether any readable data”) Would factory-default contain any sensitive information in certain network environments where the ACLs should be more restrictive that world readable for everyone?

Per “The operational disruption caused by setting the config to factory default contents varies greatly depending on the implementation and current config”, it seems like it could be worse than just an operational disruption.  Please note that a default configuration could be insecure or not have security controls enabled whereby exposing the network to compromise.

[Ballot comment]
Please use YANG security considerations template from https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines.  Specifically (as a COMMENT item):

** Add “The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to …”

[Ballot comment]
Section 2:
* "All security sensitive data (i.e., private keys, passwords, etc.)  SHOULD be overwritten ..." presents a choice.  Why would an implementer not do this?
* "Implementors SHOULD reboot the device or otherwise restart processes needed to bootstrap it." leads me to the same question.

Nits:
* "Upon receiving the RPC" is followed by a list, so please add a colon
* "datastores(e.g.," -- add a space after "datastores"

Section 3:
Nits:
* "The contents of  is defined  ..." -- s/is/are/

Section 5:
* "This document registers one URI in the IETF XML Registry [RFC3688]. ..." should say explicitly that it's the "ns" sub-registry receiving a new entry.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-factory-default
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-factory-default
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-factory-default
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-factory-default
Prefix: fd
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-03-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: netmod@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org, Kent Watsen , kent+ietf@watsen.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Factory Default Settings) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Factory Default
Settings'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-03-16. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Note: Warren Kumari is officially the Responsible AD, but is simply acting as a proxy for Rob Wilton, the incoming Management AD.


Abstract


  This document defines a YANG data model to allow clients to reset a
  server back to its factory default condition.  It also defines a
  "factory-default" datastore to allow clients to read the factory
  default configuration for the device.

  The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
  Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  Proposed Standard.



(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.

Shepherd:

  This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
  default content.  The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
  existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
  configuration process from scratch is the best option.

  A new factory-reset RPC is defined.  When resetting a datastore, all
  previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
  factory-default content.

  A new optional "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that
  contains the data that will be copied over to the running datastore
  at reset.



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?

Shepherd:

  There was nothing in the process worth noting.  The authors
  originally thought the solution should reset a "datastore",
  but the WG convinced them that the restoring of the "running"
  datastore was simply an artifact of the RPC.



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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of an implementations nor commitments.

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-factory-default-07-yangdoctors-lc-moberg-2019-11-27


Personnel:

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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is/was Ignas Bagdonas (now Robert 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -10 and -11 updates.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang
      $ pyang --strict --ietf ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need from a particular or from 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.
  The draft is very simple, straightforward, and long overdue.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gyhsCTz9NqIHx87XGplShG0CrX4

  Disclaimer:

      My kickoff message erroneously says "In order to complete the
      Adoption poll".  It should've said "Last Call".  This was a
      copy/paste error.

  Warning:

    For some reason Niu Ye's response sent on Nov 14 does not appear
    above. I have tried to find it by justing looking at the messages
    sent on that date, but to no avail.  I have the message in my
    local mailbox and see that it was sent to the "netmod" list. I
    don't understand why Niu Ye's response doesn't appear.



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

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document is very solid.  The WG as a
  whole understands and agrees with it.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -10, which led to the publication
  of -11.  Currently the "very verbose" mode returns one warning
  and one comment:

  1) The warning:

        == Missing Reference: 'RFC8573' is mentioned on line 419, but not
          defined 'provision [RFC8573];...'

      Is a non-issue because the "reference" appears in the Change Log
      section that will be removed by RFC Editor.

  2) The comment:

        -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
          sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
          '' lines.

      is also a non-issue, as these are inline examples not needed CODE blocks.
   


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

Shepherd:

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-factory-default-07-yangdoctors-lc-moberg-2019-11-27



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to by correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  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.

Shepherd:

  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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the YANG module
  and the module's namespace, which is suitable for this document.



(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.

Shepherd:

  Neither of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang
      $ pyang --strict --ietf ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The tested the formatting using the command:

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-factory-default@2019-11-27.yang > new.yang
      $ diff ietf-factory-default@2019-11-27.yang new.yang

  Two very minor whitespace differences were reported:

      1) The "reference" statement for "import ietf-netconf-acm" should
        be indented by one space:

        OLD:      "RFC8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
        NEW:      "RFC8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";

      2) Three of the lines in the "description" statement for
        "identity factory-default" should be indented by one space:

        OLD:
                configuration for the device used to replace the contents
                of the read-write conventional configuration datastores
                during a 'factory-reset' RPC operation.";
        NEW:
                configuration for the device used to replace the contents
                of the read-write conventional configuration datastores
                during a 'factory-reset' RPC operation.";



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 1 November 2019.


(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?

Shepherd:

  Proposed Standard.



(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.

Shepherd:

  This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
  default content.  The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
  existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
  configuration process from scratch is the best option.

  A new factory-reset RPC is defined.  When resetting a datastore, all
  previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
  factory-default content.

  A new optional "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that
  contains the data that will be copied over to the running datastore
  at reset.



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?

Shepherd:

  There was nothing in the process worth noting.  The authors
  originally thought the solution should reset a "datastore",
  but the WG convinced them that the restoring of the "running"
  datastore was simply an artifact of the RPC.



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, YANG 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?

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is unaware of an implementations nor commitments.

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-factory-default-07-yangdoctors-lc-moberg-2019-11-27


Personnel:

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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.
  The responsible AD is/was Ignas Bagdonas (now Robert 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd reread the entire document, which led to requesting
  an update to address numerous non-technical issues that were
  addressed in the -10 and -11 updates.

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang
      $ pyang --strict --ietf ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang



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

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or
  breadth of the reviews that have been performed.



(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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd does not believe that portions of the document
  need from a particular or from 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.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.
  The draft is very simple, straightforward, and long overdue.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware any IPR related to
  this document.

  Here is the link to the IPR call request:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gyhsCTz9NqIHx87XGplShG0CrX4

  Disclaimer:

      My kickoff message erroneously says "In order to complete the
      Adoption poll".  It should've said "Last Call".  This was a
      copy/paste error.

  Warning:

    For some reason Niu Ye's response sent on Nov 14 does not appear
    above. I have tried to find it by justing looking at the messages
    sent on that date, but to no avail.  I have the message in my
    local mailbox and see that it was sent to the "netmod" list. I
    don't understand why Niu Ye's response doesn't appear.



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

Shepherd:

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that references 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?

Shepherd:

  WG consensus behind this document is very solid.  The WG as a
  whole understands and agrees with it.



(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.)

Shepherd:

  No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
  discontent (extreme or otherwise).



(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.

Shepherd:

  Idnits was tested against -10, which led to the publication
  of -11.  Currently the "very verbose" mode returns one warning
  and one comment:

  1) The warning:

        == Missing Reference: 'RFC8573' is mentioned on line 419, but not
          defined 'provision [RFC8573];...'

      Is a non-issue because the "reference" appears in the Change Log
      section that will be removed by RFC Editor.

  2) The comment:

        -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
          sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
          '' lines.

      is also a non-issue, as these are inline examples not needed CODE blocks.
   


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

Shepherd:

  The document went through a YANG Doctor review as part of the
  Last Call process.  Here is a direct link to that review:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-factory-default-07-yangdoctors-lc-moberg-2019-11-27



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

Shepherd:

  Yes, all the references have been reviewed to by correct.



(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?

Shepherd:

  All normative references are published.



(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.

Shepherd:

  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.

Shepherd:

  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 8126).

Shepherd:

  The IANA Considerations section only registers the YANG module
  and the module's namespace, which is suitable for this document.



(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.

Shepherd:

  Neither of the IANA registration requests require expert review.



(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, YANG modules, etc.

Shepherd:

  The Shepherd validated the syntactical correctness of the module
  using both `yanglint` and `pyang`, with neither returning any
  errors or warnings.

      $ yanglint --strict ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang
      $ pyang --strict --ietf ietf-factory-default\@2019-11-27.yang



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

Shepherd:

  The tested the formatting using the command:

      $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 ietf-factory-default@2019-11-27.yang > new.yang
      $ diff ietf-factory-default@2019-11-27.yang new.yang

  Two very minor whitespace differences were reported:

      1) The "reference" statement for "import ietf-netconf-acm" should
        be indented by one space:

        OLD:      "RFC8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
        NEW:      "RFC8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";

      2) Three of the lines in the "description" statement for
        "identity factory-default" should be indented by one space:

        OLD:
                configuration for the device used to replace the contents
                of the read-write conventional configuration datastores
                during a 'factory-reset' RPC operation.";
        NEW:
                configuration for the device used to replace the contents
                of the read-write conventional configuration datastores
                during a 'factory-reset' RPC operation.";



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 1 November 2019.

(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?

(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.

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?

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, YANG 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?

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

(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?

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

(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?

(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.)

(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.

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

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

(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 8126).

(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, YANG modules, etc.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?