As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
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?
A Proposed Standard is being requested. A proposed standard is needed
to ensure interoperability. The title page header indicates that it is
a Standards Track document.
(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:
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
This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a
syslog process. It is intended this model be used by vendors who
implement syslog in their systems.
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
Yes, the model initially had defined support for configuring
Syslog over TPC (RFC 6587). However, after reviewing the
reasoning for why RFC 6587 was made HISTORIC, as decided to
remove the support. Some stated that their companies support
Syslog over TCP and now they would have to augment this model
with a vendor-specific extension. There may be a subtle
distinction between IETF defining an insecure protocol versus
defining a data model to configure, amongst other things, an
insecure protocol. We believe we did the right thing, from
an IETF perspective, but please double-check this.
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, 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?
This draft defines a data model (not a protocol). So far,
two vendors have indicated that they're interested in
implementing this data model. There was a YANG Doctor
review on the -17 that was successful:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
The Shepherd is Kent Watsen. The AD is Benoit Claise.
(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 Document Shepherd went through the checklist posted here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate
One noteworthy point here. Regarding the checklist item "Are all
normative references made to documents that are ready for advancement
and are otherwise in a clear state?", it is worth noting that this
draft references both draft-ietf-netconf-keystore and
draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server. While these two drafts are
both fairly mature, they are not in a clear state. For example,
the most recent update to the keystore module removed the storage
of keys from it, and thus now the working group is ascertaining
if the module should be renamed, which would have a ripple-effect
on this draft. One idea was to remove the TLS-support from this
document (leaving only the UDP transport), but it was decided to
instead keep the references, which guarantees a MISREF, and then,
once those other drafts are resolved, this draft may need some
final fit-and-finish so it's aligned.
(4) Does the document Shepherd 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
No portions of the document have been flagged as needing to be reviewed
from a particular or 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
The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this
document beyond the afore-mentioned dependency on the YANG modules
within the "keystore" and "tls-client-server" drafts.
(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. This verification occurred at the time of the WG Last Call.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR disclosure has been filed.
(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?
Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize 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 one has threatened an appeal otherwise indicated extreme discontent.
(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
Idnits finds only two issues:
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore' is defined on line 1340,
but no explicit reference was found in the text
'[I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore] Watsen, K., "YANG Data Model for a "Keys...'
This is a bug in idnits, whereby a reference that splits two lines is
== Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
This is not an issue. The tree-diagrams draft is almost an RFC now and
already there should an RFC Editor note requesting the I-D be replaced
with the final RFC number assignment.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
This document has been reviewed by a member of the YANG Doctors group.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, all references have been partitioned into these two groupings.
The partitioning seems okay except:
* the tree-diagrams reference is Normative, whereas it should be
Informative (mentioned to the author on Jan 17). Also, missing
is an RFC Editor note requesting that the I-D reference to be
updated to reflect the assigned RFC number.
(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?
There are two normative references to works in progress:
draft-ietf-netconf-keystore and draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server.
While both these drafts are fairly mature, they will take time to
complete. Given the Editor of those drafts is busy, the chairs have
looked for others that would be willing to take over the Editor role.
Unfortunately, there were no takers. At this time, we have assurances
from the Editor that those drafts will get moved back to the "front
burner" in 2-3 weeks.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.
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.
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 5226).
The draft does not define any new registries. It does insert one new
element into two existing registries. It does this using the standard
registration technique found in many YANG model drafts.
(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.
This document does not define any new IANA 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.
The shepherd validated both the primary and example yang modules using
both the `pyang` and `yanglint` tools. The shepherd also validated the
two XML examples in Section 5 of the document using the `yanglint` tool