Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup


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] A "Proposed Standard" is requested.  This is the proper type of RFC
given WG consensus.  The "Proposed Status" RFC type is indicated in
Datatracker. The title page says that the Intended status is "Standards Track".

(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] (from the Abstract)
   This document defines a generic geographical location object YANG
   grouping.  The geographical location grouping is intended to be used
   in YANG models for specifying a location on or in reference to Earth
   or any other astronomical object.

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 were no noteworthy WG process issues.  Controversial points
were resolved.  No items had particularly rough consensus.

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] There are no known implementations known to the Shepherd.  No
vendors have indicated their plan to implement the specification.  It was
originally forwarded to support DT's Terra Stream project.


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

[Shepherd] The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.  The Responsible Area Director is
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 has read the document, validated the normative YANG
module found in Section 3, and validated both the example YANG module and
example XML document found in Appendix A.

(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 draft had additional review by non-IETF experts Ben Koziol and
Jim Biard:

    Ben Koziol - NOAA Affiliate <>
    University of Colorado
    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the
    NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory/Global Systems Division

    Jim Biard <>
    Research Scholar
    North Carolina State University
    North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies (NCICS

(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] I wish that Section 2.4. (Nested Locations) prodided an example
using nested alternate coordinate sysrtems.  For instance, a data center
building has a "street address", it's composed of “floors” that contain “rooms”
or “cages”, that contain “racks” to hold equipment in “bays”, etc.   The draft
compares itself to related work, but it is unclear if any of those system
support nesting alternate coordinate systems such as those described, or even
if it would make sense to do so.

(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] Yes

(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] The whole WG adopted the effort.  Strong concurrence of a few
individuals worked out the details.

(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 extreme

(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 thorough.

[Shepherd] According to IDNITS with "verbose checking":


/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(316): Code start at 316:    <CODE
BEGINS> file "ietf-geo-location@2019-02-17.yang".
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(626): Code end at 626:    <CODE
ENDS>. /tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(992): Line has weird spacing:
'...   name  ietf-...' /tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(994): Line
has weird spacing: '...mespace  urn:i...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(996): Line has weird spacing: '...
prefix  geo...' /tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-07.txt(1248): Line is too
long: the offending characters are '?'

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to :

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 1 character in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  -- The document date (June 2021) is 173 days in the future.  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)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EGM08'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EGM96'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WGS84'

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).


Of these, the only real issue is the "line too long" issue, which the RFC
Editor should catch.  Some of the other "issues" are actually NOT issues at all
(e.g., the future date, down refs, etc.)

(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 was reviewed by a YANG Doctor:

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

[Shepherd] Yes, all the references have been identified as either normative or

(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 documents are fully published.  Some normative
documents are by other SDOs.

(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

[Shepherd] There are no downward references.  The down-refs caught by IDNITS
are because those references are published by external SDOs.

(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 does 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 Shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations section.  In
addition to the two standard registrations made by any document publishing YANG
modules, the document also defines a new "Geodetic System Values" 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.

[Shepherd] No new registriries require Expert Review for future allocations.

(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 has validated the normative YANG module found in
Section 3, and validated both the example YANG module and the example instance
XML document found in Appendix A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation 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

[Shepherd] The Shepherd used the following command to check the "style"
correctness of the YANG module.  A few discrepancies appeared, but none seemed
overly egregious to the Shepherd:

  $ pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69
  ietf-geo-location@2019-02-17.yang > tmp; diff
  ietf-geo-location@2019-02-17.yang tmp