As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.
(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?
Informational.
This is presenting in the correct format / convention to be considered an RFC.
The type of RFC is 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:
The document sets out to provide clarification around the complex issues
surrounding terminology for the intended and applied configuration as relating
to the operational state of a device. For some time the exact definition of the
terms surrounding configuration for operational state (OpState) have been
recently debated. This created the requirement for this draft, as a document to
clarify what the terms defined within it should be taken to mean. The result of
this draft is other drafts now have a reference point on which to base their
language/definitions.
Working Group Summary:
Background on this draft: the draft “Consistent Modeling of Operational State
Data in YANG” draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-00 (now expired) proposed a
solution on how to model the operational states. This draft generated a lot of
discussion. Much of the discussions (we even had dedicated virtual meetings on
the topic) was around terminology and the problem requirements. Two different
solutions to this problem (or a similar problem) have been proposed in the
meantime. At that point, the AD asked the two chairs to summarize and document
the agreed requirements. In the end, there was a willingness to publish this
document.
This document is a NETMOD Working Group document, and has been reviewed in the
working group through 4 iterations and via interim meetings. Recently the last
few iterations distilled the references, grammar and other issues, and these
where discussed fully and in a lively manner at the interim meetings. The draft
has made quick progress as the issue of terminational and its definition was an
urgent matter to be resolved.
Document Quality:
The document provides a clear and concise descriptions for the terms it
addresses, which was its aim. As an informational draft there is no
protocol to implement.
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Andrew McLachlan (amclachl@cisco.com)
Area Director: Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com)
(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 has reviewed the mailing archives and the done a full
review of the last 3 versions of the drafts. The last major revision of the
draft was -04 focusing on clearer definitions in the areas of Backwards
Compatibility, general Requirements and tighter definition of Asynchronous
Configuration Operation. With the help of the interim meetings general
consensus was achieved and it is regarded that this document can now proceed.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(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
internationalisation? If so, describe the review that took place.
No.
(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.
No specific concerns.
(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?
Yes, for the authors.
The acknowledgments section says: “The authors would like to thank the
following for contributing to this document”. “contributing” might be
ambitious. Anyway people in that list have mentioned no IPR. After, an IPR on a
requirement document doesn’t make much sense…
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarise any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(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?
The document Shepherd did a scan through the mail archives and previous IETF
meeting minutes to review debates on the draft, and the consensus appears to be
that it is ready to move to RFC as an informational document.
(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.
(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.
Only a minor formatting issue found “ It seems as if not all pages are
separated by form feeds - found 5 form feeds but 15 pages” which can be address
with the editors
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. The Document Shepherd checked all this as part of the document review.
(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 - all normative references are to RFCs.
(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.
No - all normative references are upward.
(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.
No - no impact on status of 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).
The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the
document and contains all of the information necessary for IANA to
create and populate the new Relative Location Parameters 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.
No 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.
No sections written in a formal language.