Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents:  draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06
This template is dated 4 July 2022.
The is VERSION 1.0 of the shepherd write-up, from 2023-11-27.

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

There seem to be quite a few poeple reading and commenting on the document,
and it seems to be a good update.

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

No great controversy.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?


> 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 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

>Additional Reviews
>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.

The document interacts with RIR databases, but this interaction has already
been taken into account.

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


> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module

No YANG module.

>Document Shepherd Checks
>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 seems complete, and represents a small, but significant
increment over RFC9092.

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

The document is correctly slated as Standards Track.
The DT has not been updated.

>Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
>the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed?


>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.

All seems fine.

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

idnits has some nits, lack of IPv6, abstract needs work.

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

They look fine.

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


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

There seem to be some downref's missing, that should have been added for
RFC9092, but which were not.  Specifically, RFC5485, and RFC8805.

> 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?


> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
> If

Yes, it will obsolete RFC9092.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

There are no IANA considerations, and no registries created or extended.