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 1 November 2019.
<AC> Write-up filled out by Alexander Clemm. Responses delimited with AC in
pointy brackets. </AC>
(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?
<AC> Informational </AC>
(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:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in
the abstract or introduction.
<AC> The document articulates a framework for the use of network telemetry for
purposes of operations and management. The framework accommodates various
techniques for the generation of telemetry data by the network and for the
collection and consumption of that data by applications. It distinguishes
between separate modules includig for control plane, forwarding plane, and
management plane telemetry and lays out a common component structure for those
modules. Interfaces are described and existing IETF techniques are mapped to
the framework. The framework and the taxonomy that it contains is intended to
provide a common ground and serve as guidance for the development and
application of corresponding techniques and standards. </AC>
Working Group Summary:
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?
<AC> There was no major controversy. The author accommodated the various points
that were raised thoughout the process, as far as I can tell to everyone's
satisfaction. There are no open issues. </AC>
Document Quality:
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?
<AC> The document does not describe a protocol. What is described is a
framework. Similar frameworks will in fact already be deployed. However, the
contribution of the document is that it articulates the "best practices" for
such frameworks, that it provides a systemic mapping of how various existing
techniques relate to it, that it provides a common taxonomy, that it helps to
organize related efforts. There have also been contributions to the document by
operators. YANG Doctors etc were not applicable here. </AC>
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
<AC> Document Shepherd: Alexander Clemm. Area Director: Robert Wilton.
Please note that the document shepherd is also a contributor to the document.
In case this is of concern, I am okay with having my name removed. </AC>
(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.
<AC> Since having been appointed as document shepherd when the document was in
-05, already after WG review. I have put the document through two additional
thorough rounds of reviews. The current revision, -07, addresses all comments
to my satisfaction. In my opinion the document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
<AC> No concerns. </AC>
(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.
<AC> I do not think further review or additional perspectives are necessary.
</AC>
(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.
<AC> My concerns/comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. I believe
the document can can be advanced. </AC>
(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?
<AC> Yes. All authors and contributors have indicated that they are not aware
of any IPR that applies to this draft. </AC>
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
<AC> No </AC>
(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?
<AC> The consensus is solid and the WG agrees. In addition, the document has
also a broad set of contributors (from a broad set of organizations). </AC>
(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.)
<AC> Not that I am aware of. </AC>
(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.
<AC> There are no issues. However, there are a few references that need to be
updated for publication:
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out has been published
as RFC 8671
== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions-02
== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-08
</AC>
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
<AC> None of these criteria apply. </AC>
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
<AC> Yes. All references are informative, also reflecting the "Informational"
status of the draft. </AC>
(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?
<AC> No </AC>
(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.
<AC> No </AC>
(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.
<AC> No </AC>
(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).
<AC> This document contains no request to IANA and no registries are involved,
hence this is not applicable </AC>
(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.
<AC> The document contains no request to IANA, hence this is not applicable
</AC>
(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.
<AC> Not applicable </AC>
(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?
<AC> Not applicable </AC>