Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management
draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for the efforts put into this document.

The addition of text in sections 2 to scope the use of of the "terms" introduced in section 3.2 (and the subset listed in section 2) to network fault and problem management helped clear my previous DISCUSS position.

The document is still turning widely used English words into terminologies (even if in the reduced scope) and I was hoping that the authors/WG may be able to tweak the terms to make them better qualified as suggested (e.g., perhaps Incident -> Network Incident, Fault -> Network Fault, and so on). I understand that the authors (and the WG?) does not agree and hence changing my ballot to ABSTAIN to not stand in the way of publication of this document.

Following are a couple of (non-blocking) editorial comments that were not addressed since the authors (and presumably the WG) disagree and find them useful:

1) Figure 1 - I find this very unhelpful and even misleading since the text says "Note that there is a 1:n relationship between Network system and Resources, and between Resources and Characteristics: this is not shown on the figure for clarity." What is lost if this figure were removed entirely?

2) Figure 2 - even this figure is confusing (the text is nice and clear though and perfectly conveys the meaning). As a reader, I have no clue how to interpret all those lines and arrows. To me, it didn't add anything but in fact removed the clarity that I had from the text. What is lost if this figure were also removed?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Hilarie Orman for their multiple secdir reviews.

Section 6:  It is more than just network fault and problem management.  The collection and manipulation of all network traffic (the definition of 'network telemetry') may very well lead to the collection of end-user's privacy information.  That repository of information including the analytics generated from it needs to be protected and controlled to avoid exposure of that privacy information. 

I also support Ketan's discuss.  I certainly hope that these terms as they apply to network fault and problem management aren't now off limits to any other IETF subject areas (for example, the term 'alarms' is used in many places within the Security Area where it may or may not take on the same meaning as in this document).

[Ballot comment]
The document is well-written and probably useful in the proper context. However, I concur with Ketan's DISCUSS about defining what that context is. It currently states that these terms are defined "for the IETF" while other bodies might use them as well; this suggests a broad application of these definitions through all future IETF publications. If that's the intent, it probably needs to come out of a broader community than nmop.

Rather, I would expect to see a BCP14-like boilerplate that future documents could use when they import these terms; something like

> The terms "Event", "State", "Fault", "Problem", "Symptom", "Cause", "Alert", and "Alarm" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFCthis] when, and only when, they appear capitalized as shown here.

Alternatively, a fixed boilerplate could be omitted and instead require that documents cite this document in order to use these terms. Either way, it needs to be clear that the definitions in this document do not automatically apply to all future IETF documents.

[Ballot comment]
# Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-19
CC @anewton1998

* line numbers:
  - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-19.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/

Many thanks to Tim Bray for the ARTART review.

## Comments

To the issue of Ketan's DISCUSS, echoed by both Gunter and Éric, it might be worthwhile to reconsider the
language on lines 136 to 139.

136        When other documents make use of the terms as defined in this
137        document, it is suggested here that such uses should use
138        capitalization of the terms as in this document to help distinguish
139        them from colloquial uses, and should include an early section
140        listing the terms inherited from this document with a citation.

Perhaps:

    To avoid confusion with commonly used English words used in networking both in the IETF
    and other organizations, it is highly recommended that employment of these terms should use...

[Ballot comment]
I support the DISCUSS raised by Ketan.

From my perspective this document should clearly state that when its terminology is used, a referencing document must explicitly reference this document. Several terms defined herein, such as “state” and “error” (amongst others), are already in use in other contexts, particularly in routing protocols, where they may carry significantly different meanings. For example, “state” often refers to neighbor relationships or route computation phases, and “error” in BGP involves well-defined NOTIFICATION messages and extensive error codes (e.g., per RFC 7606).

Without such clarification, there is a risk of semantic conflicts or misinterpretation when these terms are used in non-management contexts or sometimes even in management contexts of routing technologies. I would like to see an explicitly acknowledge within this draft that its terminology is not normative across all IETF work, and that other documents remain free to define their own terminology or that it is expected to reference this document if alignment is intended.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, it must have been a huge amount of work to reach consensus on all these terms!

Some comments though:

1) isn't "YANG data models" more appropriate than "YANG models" ?

2) why are the terms not sorted alphabetically ?

3) using SVG graphics (easy if markdown with aasvg) makes the HTML rendering much easier to read

4) like Ketan, I find the use of capitalization weird in `When other documents make use of the terms as defined in this document, it is suggested here that such uses should use capitalization of the terms as in this document to help distinguish them from colloquial uses`. Why not suggesting that other documents simply write in their terminology section that terms foo & bar are from this document (similar to the BCP 14 template).

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors and the WG for the efforts put into this document.

Should this document be published as an IETF stream RFC (i.e., with IETF consensus), I have concerns that the terminologies "defined" in this document get thrust upon any/all IETF documents (e.g., during OPSDIR or other reviews) and thereby potentially causing harm to the technical quality, clarity, and readability of IETF specifications.

I have no concerns related to terms in Section 3.1 as they are well-scoped.

However, terms in sections 3.2 (even the subset listed in section 2) and 3.3 are very commonly used English language words used pervasively in IETF specifications and documents. Their (mis?)appropriation as technical terms is very concerning.

I will quote some texts below:

"The terms defined in this document are principally intended for consistent use within the IETF."

"The purpose of this document is to define the following terms for use in other documents. Other terms are defined to enable those definitions and may also be used by other documents, ..."

IMHO turning common English words into technical terms and asking for their use with capitalization is going to make things harder for the writers and readers of the IETF documents.

# DISCUSS-1 : I would like to understand precisely what is the scope or applicability of these terms. If it is being done specifically for documents from the NMOP WG, then that is one thing and perhaps the text should clarify the same. If it is any wider, then I would like to DISCUSS why this is needed.

Regarding the "workflows" in section 4.

# DISCUSS-2 : I believe the context of this section and workflows is limited and specific to the domain of network monitoring, fault management, incident reporting, and so on. If so, please clarify the same at the start of the section - i.e., provide the motivation of why these workflows are being documented.

[Ballot comment]
Please also find below a couple of editorial comments:

1) Figure 1 - I find this very unhelpful and even misleading since the text says "Note that there is a 1:n relationship between Network system and Resources, and between Resources and Characteristics: this is not shown on the figure for clarity." What is lost if this figure were removed entirely?

2) Figure 2 - even this figure is confusing (the text is nice and clear though and perfectly conveys the meaning). As a reader, I have no clue how to interpret all those lines and arrows. To me, it didn't add anything but in fact removed the clarity that I had from the text. What is lost if this figure were also removed?

[Ballot comment]
Hi Nigel, Adrian, Thomas, Qin, and Chaode,

Thank you for the effort put into this clear, well-written, and useful document.

I have only few nits for your consideration:

# YANG Model: Be consistent with the naming recommendation in RFC8407bis

## Abstract

OLD:
  The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and
  other work related to network fault and problem management, in
  particular to YANG models and management protocols that report, make
  visible, or manage network faults and problems.


NEW:
  The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and
  other work related to network fault and problem management, in
  particular to YANG data models and management protocols that report, make
  visible, or manage network faults and problems.

## Introduction

OLD:
  A number of work efforts within the IETF seek to provide components
  of a fault management system, such as YANG models or management
  protocols.

NEW:
  A number of work efforts within the IETF seek to provide components
  of a fault management system, such as YANG data models or management
  protocols.

# Busy network?

CURRENT:
  Successful operation of large or busy networks depends on effective
  network management.

Not sure how is that defined. Do you mean networks that are continuously subject to a sustained high-volume traffic?

Network utilization may not be constant. As such, any network can be “busy” at some point, e.g., when subject to flash crowds and avalanche type traffic.

I think that I would delete that "busy" mention.

# Extends what?

CURRENT:
  Fault and
  problem management extends to include actions taken to determine the

Is a word missing in this sentence?

# Section 3.1

## nit

OLD: according to the network plane (e.g., layer 3, layer 2, layer 1)

NEW: according to the network plane (e.g., layer 3, layer 2, and layer 1)

## Consistent bullets style

OLD:
  Network Analytics:  Network Analytics is the process of deriving
      analytical insights from operational network data.

  ..

  Network Observability:  The Network Observability process …
 

NEW:
  Network Analytics:  This is the process of deriving
      analytical insights from operational network data.
  ..

  Network Observability:  This is the process …
 
This is to match the same style used in the other two bullets. Idem for the section with terms where very few entries have the term repeated as part of the definition.

## nit:

OLD:
  Thus, there is a cascaded sequence where the following relationships
  apply.

NEW:
  Thus, there is a cascaded sequence where the following relationships
  Apply:

Cheers,
Med

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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

Request for IETF Last Call review by ARTART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Tim Bray. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-06-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: benoit.claise@huawei.com, draft-ietf-nmop-terminology@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, nmop-chairs@ietf.org, nmop@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network Management Operations WG
(nmop) to consider the following document: - 'Some Key Terms for Network
Fault and Problem Management'
  as Informational RFC

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 2025-06-02. 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


  This document sets out some terms that are fundamental to a common
  understanding of network fault and problem management within the
  IETF.

  The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and
  other work related to network fault and problem management, in
  particular to YANG models and management protocols that report, make
  visible, or manage network faults and problems.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nmop-terminology/



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

The document is short and well written. I am marking the Substate as Revised I-D Needed, but it may very well be that the authors come back with no changes.

The review can be found at - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/Z_daT-OkksfrpLuzs28SZOTpa3M/

===
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

## 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?

Yes, the document represent a strong consensus within the WG.

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

No specific controversy, but “normal” divergence of some options for some specific
terms (e.g., root cause). The editor actively sought for more feedback when
the consensus is not clear for some items and always indicated a rationale for
rejecting some proposed changes. No dispute was raised.

A side meeting was organized in IETF#120 to discuss a set of issues and main outcome
and pending ones were then presented to WG. Authors did a cross check of all adopted
NMOP documents and identified some alignment actions. These actions were discussed
and then agreed and implemented by authors of all NMOP documents.

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.)

No. The discussion and exchanges were very productive with always a positive tone
by the participants and the Editor.

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)?

N/A.

## 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.

Because some terms are also used by other areas, early reviews were requested
prior to Dublin IETF#121 meeting.

The WG sought early in the process feedback from various areas (OPS-DIR, IOTDIR,
SECDIR, RTGDIR, GENART, INTDIR). As part the WGLC, the WG solicited various
areas to check that issues raised in the first round were adequately handled.


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.

N/A.

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]?

N/A.

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.

N/A.

## 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?

The document is well-written and complete per the scope set by the WG for this effort.

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?

No further review is needed.

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?

The intended status is Informational. This is adequately indicated in the front
page and also in the Datatracker. This status is justified given the nature of
the document with a set of term definitions.

This document may be normatively referenced by other documents, though.

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.

Yes, polls were run the Chairs prior to call for adoption and also in preparation
to the WGLC.

• CFA relies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ydBUZbc-RodsZj4RLISi0PifktU/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/aHo73_gJyOWv1BNHln3O8dPqhZ4/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/QYdd4fzU-mFusPfZGfz0iTj7ySc/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ZyNCfJAShps40of0nQpwiFH8CrY/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/16TFLL6Zm7kzqRS8LztDba8Rg0w/
• WGLC replies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/j8vz9F8MyQ9qQDnvvhSGrGCaxik/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/FbbyGC2iyvgOBCUstiZ4IbS6wx8/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/9u7C4RTqDBgf1D95IJdZ4SJ4CGM/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/hyghGmiJOmXlHLy_NLbnUok46L8/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/zrpeims9j50sLhjZy8dSHZU73lE/

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.

Yes, as evidenced by the replies to various IPR polls.

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.)

The document is admirably idnits-free!

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

No, the current reference classification is sound.

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

N/A. All references are Informative.

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.

N/A. All references are Informative.

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?

N/A. All references are Informative.

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.

No.

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]).

This document does not create any registry. The IANA section is clear about this.

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.

N/A. This document does not create any registry that require DE review.

[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

## 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?

Yes, the document represent a strong consensus within the WG.

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

No specific controversy, but “normal” divergence of some options for some specific
terms (e.g., root cause). The editor actively sought for more feedback when
the consensus is not clear for some items and always indicated a rationale for
rejecting some proposed changes. No dispute was raised.

A side meeting was organized in IETF#120 to discuss a set of issues and main outcome
and pending ones were then presented to WG. Authors did a cross check of all adopted
NMOP documents and identified some alignment actions. These actions were discussed
and then agreed and implemented by authors of all NMOP documents.

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.)

No. The discussion and exchanges were very productive with always a positive tone
by the participants and the Editor.

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)?

N/A.

## 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.

Because some terms are also used by other areas, early reviews were requested
prior to Dublin IETF#121 meeting.

The WG sought early in the process feedback from various areas (OPS-DIR, IOTDIR,
SECDIR, RTGDIR, GENART, INTDIR). As part the WGLC, the WG solicited various
areas to check that issues raised in the first round were adequately handled.


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.

N/A.

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]?

N/A.

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.

N/A.

## 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?

The document is well-written and complete per the scope set by the WG for this effort.

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?

No further review is needed.

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?

The intended status is Informational. This is adequately indicated in the front
page and also in the Datatracker. This status is justified given the nature of
the document with a set of term definitions.

This document may be normatively referenced by other documents, though.

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.

Yes, polls were run the Chairs prior to call for adoption and also in preparation
to the WGLC.

• CFA relies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ydBUZbc-RodsZj4RLISi0PifktU/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/aHo73_gJyOWv1BNHln3O8dPqhZ4/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/QYdd4fzU-mFusPfZGfz0iTj7ySc/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ZyNCfJAShps40of0nQpwiFH8CrY/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/16TFLL6Zm7kzqRS8LztDba8Rg0w/
• WGLC replies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/j8vz9F8MyQ9qQDnvvhSGrGCaxik/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/FbbyGC2iyvgOBCUstiZ4IbS6wx8/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/9u7C4RTqDBgf1D95IJdZ4SJ4CGM/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/hyghGmiJOmXlHLy_NLbnUok46L8/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/zrpeims9j50sLhjZy8dSHZU73lE/

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.

Yes, as evidenced by the replies to various IPR polls.

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.)

The document is admirably idnits-free!

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

No, the current reference classification is sound.

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

N/A. All references are Informative.

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.

N/A. All references are Informative.

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?

N/A. All references are Informative.

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.

No.

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]).

This document does not create any registry. The IANA section is clear about this.

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.

N/A. This document does not create any registry that require DE review.

[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

Med's Notes:

* CFA IPR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-nmop/Logistic/blob/main/ipr-poll-cfa/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology.md
* Side meeting in IETF#120 to discuss a set of issues. The main outcome and pending ones were then presented to WG.
* Authors indicated that -06 is stable enough, but more checks are needed.
* Authors did a cross check of all adopted NMOP documents and identified some alignment actions
* Request early reviews prior to Dublin IETF#121 meeting

## 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?

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

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.)

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)?

## 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.

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.

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]?

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.

## 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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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]).

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.

[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/