Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

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.

Note: this is a combined write-up for the following drafts:

(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 set of documents describes a Yang datamodel for Interfaces.
The set is split in two different documents:

draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (Proposed standard)
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-11 (Proposed standard)

And one document that describes supporting data models:

draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-07 (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


 This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network
 interfaces.  It is expected that interface type specific data models
 augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document.
 The data model includes configuration data, state data and counters
 for the collection of statistics.

 This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP
 This document defines the initial version of the iana-if-type YANG
 module for interface type definitions.

Working Group Summary:

 The normal WG process was followed and the documents reflect WG
 consensus with nothing special worth mentioning except for the following.

 While the working group felt that the set of documents was complete in
 April 2013, there was a sense of unease about disparities between
 operational state and configuration. Additional reviews during the last
 call made it clear that it was desirable to deal with this by separating
 operational state from configuration management and that this should have
 been done from the beginning. The working group pulled the document back
 from IESG review and worked to add this to the model.

Document Quality:

 This set of documents received extensive review within the working group
 and ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
 The working group also reached out to the IP directorate and received
 additional review from Dave Thaler.

 David Kessens is the document shepherd.
 Benoit Claise 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

The document shepherd reviewed the documents for correctness after earlier
reviews done when the documents were Last Called. 

Only one minor issue that was found is that the reference to
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-03 should have been replaced by RFC 6991 as
this draft was approved and published by now which can easily be handled by
the rfc editor.

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

No, the netmod working group has healthy cooperative spirit and many reviews
were contributed from all the major contributors to this work.

(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

No, the documents already received addiotonal review from Dave Thaler from
the IP directorate.

(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?

We have not received any IPR disclosures.

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


(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?

Very strong. This is not a large working group but it is an active and
diverse working group with many contributing individuals.

(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 and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB 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?

No. This the reason we bring this as a set of document to the IESG.

(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).


(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.