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.
(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 document is a standards track document, targeting the status of
proposed standard. It replaces and therefore obsoletes RFC 7223 also
a standards track document.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7223.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01.txt
for a comparison between the original RFC and the WG document version 1
(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 [RFC7950] 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 and state data (status
information and counters for the collection of statistics).
This version revised version of the interfaces data model supports
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].
Working Group Summary
Working Group last call commenced on 28 Nov 2017 and completed
14 Dec 2017. Changes made to the document to produce -01 were
largely editorial.
Document Quality
The shepherd is satisfied with the the review up through WGLC and
believes the document is ready for IETF last call, yang doctors review
and IESG review.
Personnel
Joel Jaeggli is the document shepherd, Benoit Claise is responsible AD.
(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 revised draft, performed the
yang validation and examined the nits.
Examination of they yang catalog impact analysis show extensive impact
from changes to the network interface data model, but this limited changes
proposed here appear to have been adequately explored.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No special concerns, are present up to this point in the cycle.
(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.
It is important that review on the completed document be performed with
an eye towards the impact across the spectrum of documents which depend
on this one. Yang doctors review during IETF last call is anticipated.
(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 such concerns exist.
(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.
The Shepherd has not become informed of any new encumbrance that has
appeared before or since the publication of RFC7223 in 2014.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPRs have been filed against 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?
Working group participants were uniformly in favor of advancement
during WGCL.
(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 appeals are threatened or anticipated.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
no nits of substance are found in draft 01
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
formal review by yang doctors will be requested to coencide with IETF
last call.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes
(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?
ietf-netmod-revised-datastores is being advanced and will shortly arrive
in IETF last call state.
(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.
There are no notable downrefs.
(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.
This draft obsoletes RFC 7223 also a standards track document.
(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).
this Document updates the yang model registry supplanting the registration
of RFC 7223.
(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 are created.
(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.
The yang model was run through the validator.