This is the publication request and document shepherd write up for:
A YANG Data Model for NTP
draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-09
Prepared by: Dieter Sibold, 11 August 2020
(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?
Proposed Standard
This is a YANG data model for NTP. As such it provides configuration of NTP
instances and provides information of about running state of NTP implementations
(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 Network Time Protocol (NTP)
implementations. The data model includes configuration data and state data.
Working Group Summary:
The document has working group consensus for publication. It has been reviewed
by several WG participants since its initial adoption as a working group item.
It has received review from YANG experts.
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus
was particularly rough?
No
Document Quality:
This document has been reviewed and revised several times during its
development. Version 03 have been submitted for a YANGDOCTOR Early review. The
overall result was "Almost Ready". The findings of the review have been
considered by the authors and incorporated into subsequent versions of the
draft.
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
There are no existing implementations of this YANG module. According to the
authors implementations are currently planned. A YANGDOCTORS review was
requested prior to WGLC in order to enhance the review process with the opinion
of an YANG expert.
Personnel:
Dieter Sibold is acting as the Document Shepherd. Erik Kline 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 has followed the working group process and reviewed the
final document and feels this document is more than ready for IESG review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd does not have any concerns about the reviews that were
performed.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
This document does not require any special reviews beyond those planned during
the IESG review process.
(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.
The Document Shepherd is comfortable with this document.
(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?
There are no IPR filings on this document. The document shepherd has received
confirmation from all the authors that they are in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP78 and BCP79 with respect to IPR disclosures.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is no IPR disclosures for this document.
(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?
The document represents consensus of the working group. Note that the members
of the working group are not YANG experts. For that reason the YANGDOCTORS
Early review was requested.
(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.)
There have been no threats of anyone appealing the documents.
(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.
The Document shepherd run ID nits. Findings: there are currently six warnings
about weird spacings. These can be fixed during subsequent iterations of the
document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The version 03 of the document has been submitted for YANGDOCTORS Early Review.
It past the review with the result "Almost Ready". The review may be accessed
via:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-03-yangdoctors-early-bierman-2018-10-08/
Issues revealed by this review have been addressed by the authors.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references are tagged as normative and informative references.
(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?
All normative references are completed.
(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 are no downrefs.
(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.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126).
The document requires the registration of a URI in the "IETF XML Registry".
Additionally, it registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry.
All the actions specified are consistent with the document and reasonably
specified.
(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.
None.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
The documents contains a YANG module. This was successfully validated by
datatracker's automatic YANG Validation.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342?
The document contains the YANG module "ietf-ntp". This module have been
successfully validated by the pyang tool at 2020-07-13. See:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model/ Compliance to
RFC8342: The YANG module comply with RFC8342.