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?
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:
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.
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
(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
(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ 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 procedure.
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.