Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd

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?

  Publication of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-09 as Proposed Standard
  is requested. This 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:

  This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration and
  identification of some common system properties within a device
  containing a NETCONF server.  This includes data node definitions
  for system identification, time-of-day management, user management,
  DNS resolver configuration, and some protocol operations for system

Working Group Summary:

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

Document Quality:

  This document received extensive review within the working group and
  ample time was spent to review and reconsider all design choices.
  Some working group members have indicated that they plan to
  implement this data model once approved by the IESG.


  Juergen Schoenwaelder 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 IESG.

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

(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 a 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 place.

  Input from RADIUS experts was requested on the RADIUS part of the
  data model and Alan DeKok provided some valuable input.

(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. We believe that the authors/editors
  understand the IETF rules regarding IPR.

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


(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?

  This document has strong concensus. 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 thorough.


(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 people who are also YANG
  doctors. As such, further YANG doctor reviews do not seem to be

(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?


(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

  There is a downward reference to RFC 1321 which however seems to be
  unavoidable. The downward reference to RFC 6151 may be resolved by
  making this reference informational but since RFC 6151 updates RFC
  1321, it also may make sense to keep it as a normative downward

  Reference to draft-ietf-netmod-iana-timezones-00 needs to be updated
  (this I-D is being shipped to IESG together with this document).

(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.

  The YANG module has been checked using pyang v1.3.