System-defined Configuration
draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-20

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for providing this document. I do not see any transport-protocol related concerns.

There is one use of "doesn't" in: "The system configuration datastore doesn't persist across reboots". Personally, I would prefer this to be written as "does not".

I also note that it is not clear in the revision whethert the examples in teh appendices are normative or informatibve - and i think this could easily e clarified in the first sentence/title.

[Ballot comment]
Hi Qiufang, Qin, and Chong,

Thank you for the discussion and for the changes made in [1]. This version addresses all the points raised in my previous ballot [2].

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-18&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-19&difftype=--html

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/oExjnAaQga-4lXLE3ejEFveSIt8/

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-18
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-18.txt&submitcheck=True

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Thanks to the Reviewers

Thanks to Marc Blanchet for the ARTART review.

## Discuss

## Comments

I have no objections to promoting this document to an RFC.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Yaroslav Rosomakho for their secdir reviews.

**This is for the ADs/netmod chairs:  Draft-ietf-tls-8446bis is in Auth48, along with draft-ietf-netmod-8407bis, if it is possible to update the ref to RFC 8446 to the soon-to-be-published RFC 9846, then the soon to be published RFC 9907 would be current when it is published.  Note:  the draft I'm writing a ballot for has already made the change in Sec Consid., which is super nice.  TY.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Qiufang, Qin, and Chong,

Thank you for the effort put into this specification.

Also, thanks to Luis Contreras Murillo for the OPSDIR review and the authors for engaging and implementing changes in -18. I see Luis has some follow-up few suggestions, though.

Please find below some few points for DISCUSSion:

# Design approach

RFC 8342 has the following:

      dynamic              |  +-------- learned configuration
      configuration        |  +-------- system configuration
      datastores -----+    |  +-------- default configuration
                      |    |  |
                      v    v  v
                    +---------------+
                    |  | <-- system state
                    | (ct + cf, ro) |
                    +---------------+

A design approach that would not impact other datastores is to expand the “system configuration” branch above and replace it with . That would be also consistent with the hierarchy of origin identity defined in RFC 8342:

  The values are YANG identities.  The following identities
  are defined:

  o  origin: abstract base identity from which the other origin
      identities are derived.

  o  intended: represents configuration provided by .

  ...

  o  system: represents configuration provided by the system itself.
      Examples of system configuration include applied configuration for
      an always-existing loopback interface, or interface configuration
      that is auto-created due to the hardware currently present in the
      device.

## Is there any reason why that approach is not followed compared to grafting  to  as in the current version of the draft?

## Note that with the current design, there are parts of RFC 8342 that needs “tweaking”

An example is provided below (there are other similar occurrences):

RFC 8342:
  The system will only provide configuration for this
  interface if there is no data for it in .

  When no configuration for "lo0" appears in ,
  will show the system-provided data:

   
     
        lo0
        127.0.0.1
        ::1
     
   

# Origin metadata annotation is normative

CURRENT:
  *  Origin: This document does not define any new origin identity.
      The "system" identity of origin metadata annotation [RFC7952] is
      used to indicate the origin of a data item provided by the system.

This is needed to tag system ds.

[Ballot comment]
# Desire

CURRENT:
  However, there is a desire to enable a server to better expose the
  system configuration, regardless of whether it is in use. 

Desire of whom?

# Root

CURRENT:
  *  YANG nodes: all "config true" data nodes up to the root of the
      tree, generated by the system.

This seems to assume one single data tree. Is that intended?

If not, I think that it is accurate to use the following:

NEW:
  *  YANG nodes: all "config true" data nodes up to the root of a data
      tree, generated by the system.

# It is weird to reason about modification for read-only ds

OLD:
  6.3.  Modifying (Overriding) System Configuration

NEW:
  6.3.  Overriding System Configuration

# IANA template for registration

OLD:
  This document registers one YANG module in the 'YANG Module Names'
  registry, defined in [RFC6020].

NEW:
    IANA is requested to register the following YANG module in the "YANG
    Module Names" registry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters"
    registry group.

# Examples are not normative

CURRENT:
  The updates of system
  configuration may be obtained through YANG notifications (e.g., on-
  change notification) [RFC8639][RFC8641].

[RFC8639] and [RFC8641] are listed as normative, while these should not. Please fix that.

# Nits

## Split long sentences + proper RFC citation

CURRENT:
  This document updates RFC 8342 to define a configuration datastore
  called "system" to hold system configuration (Section 3), it also
  redefines the term "conventional configuration datastore" from
  [RFC8342] to add "system" to the list of conventional configuration
  datastores.

or

CURRENT:
  The "intended" identity of origin value defined in [RFC8342]
  represents the origin of configuration provided by , this
  document updates its definition as the origin source of configuration
  explicitly provided by clients, and allows a subset of configuration
  in  that flows from  yet is not configured or
  overridden explicitly in  to use "system" as its origin
  value.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for providing this document. I do not see any transport-protocol related concerns.

There is one use of "doesn't" in: "The system configuration datastore doesn't persist across reboots". Personally, I would prefer this to be written as "does not".

Thanks to the authors for addressing the SECDIR review comments. There is a GENART review that needs to be addressed before progressing the document, and that might result in a revised I-D.

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Marc Blanchet. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-15. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config/

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-system-datastore
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-system-datastore
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore
Prefix: sysds
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-01-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-system-config@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (System-defined Configuration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'System-defined Configuration'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-01-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) in RFC 8342
  defines several configuration datastores holding configuration.  The
  contents of these configuration datastores are controlled by clients.
  This document introduces the concept of system configuration
  datastore holding configuration controlled by the system on which a
  server is running.  The system configuration can be referenced (e.g.,
  leafref) by configuration explicitly created by clients.

  This document updates RFC 8342.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

3. 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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (NMDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations, and thus only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced no differences.  The module not only complies with NMDA, it
          extends NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd: All references are in the correct Normative/Informative sections.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd: There are none.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd: There are none.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed on the title page, in the abstract,
          and discussed in the introduction.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

3. 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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (NMDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations, and thus only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd: There are none.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd: There are none.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed on the title page, in the abstract,
          and discussed in the introduction.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

3. 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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (MNDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations.  As such, only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

          LARGER ISSUES: please fix before this document is sent to the AD!

          Section 7.1: s/ds: conventional/ds:conventional/  (whitespace isn't allowed)
          Section 9: s/date nodes/data nodes/  (hard to spot typo)
          Section A.1: there are two apps with "destination-port" 69  (my-foo should be > 1024)
          Section A.2: s/and adds/by adding/  (better semantics, unknown if Editor would find)

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd: There are none.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd: There are none.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed in the Title and Introduction,
          sections, but it is not listed in the Abstract.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

3. 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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (MNDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations.  As such, only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

          LARGER ISSUES: please fix before this document is sent to the AD!

          Section 7.1: s/ds: conventional/ds:conventional/  (whitespace isn't allowed)
          Section 9: s/date nodes/data nodes/  (hard to spot typo)
          Section A.1: there are two apps with "destination-port" 69  (my-foo should be > 1024)
          Section A.2: s/and adds/by adding/  (better semantics, unknown if Editor would find)

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd: There are none.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

Shepherd: There are none.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed in the Title and Introduction,
          sections, but it is not listed in the Abstract.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/