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 '<CODE BEGINS>'
and '<CODE ENDS>' 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.";