A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)
draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13
CC @ekline

syntax: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Nits

### S6

* "to which the SAP is attached to." -> "to which the SAP is attached."

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I must say, without the right context and knowledge about network topology in this context it is very hard to follow figure 3. A description of the figure or reference of the document one should read to understand the topology would be a great help.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Ivaylo Petrov for the SECDIR review

** Section 1.
  e.g., to feed an intelligence that

Is the “intelligence” referenced here talking about some autonomous or automated process?

** Section 8.
      This subtree specifies the configurations of the nodes in a SAP
      network model.  Unexpected changes to this subtree (e.g.,
      associating a SAP with another parent termination point) could
      lead to service disruption and/or network misbehavior.

Could “network misbehavior” be described less colloquially?  Is it “configuration of the network inconsistent with the intent of the operator and customer”?

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-13

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ItsyANCW6Oj_lsbpj7gAxWiyOfU).

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`,
  `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
  `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
  `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-17`, but `-18` is the
latest available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### "Table of Contents", paragraph 1
```
iew can be used, e.g., to feed an intelligence that is responsible for servic
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"intelligence".

#### Section 2, paragraph 1
```
RFC4026]). Customer Edge (CE): An equipment that is dedicated to a particular
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"equipment".

#### Section 2, paragraph 3
```
itch, etc. Provider Edge (PE): An equipment owned and managed by the service
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"equipment".

#### Section 5, paragraph 22
```
and its parent interface are present but the parent interface is disabled, t
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 10.2, paragraph 29
```
oses, this section focuses on the so called "Option A" but similar examples c
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
The expression "so-called" is usually spelled with a hyphen.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-sap-ntw
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-sap-ntw
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
Prefix: sap
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adrian@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-opsawg-sap@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Network Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG
Network Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2023-01-09. 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 defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract
  view of the provider network topology that contains the points from
  which its services can be attached (e.g., basic connectivity, VPN,
  network slices).  Also, the model can be used to retrieve the points
  where the services are actually being delivered to customers
  (including peer networks).

  This document augments the 'ietf-network' data model by adding the
  concept of Service Attachment Points (SAPs).  The SAPs are the
  network reference points to which network services, such as Layer 3
  Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) or Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
  (L2VPN), can be attached.  Both User-Network Interface (UNI) and
  Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) are supported in the SAP data
  model.





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



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

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  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?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

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

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  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 appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  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.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.

>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    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
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  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, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  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 shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. 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?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status correctly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from all five of the authors can be found on that thread

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

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

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 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 change to any existing RFCs

> 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).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 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.

No new registries

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  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?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

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

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  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 appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  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.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.

>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    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
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  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, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  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 shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. 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?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status correctly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from all five of the authors can be found on that thread

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

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

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 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 change to any existing RFCs

> 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).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 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.

No new registries

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  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?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

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

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  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 appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  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.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.


>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    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
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  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, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  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 shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. 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?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status corectly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from three of the authors can be found on that thread
(M. Boucadair, S. Barguil, Q. Wu)

**** Responses pending from O. Gonzalez de Dios, V. Lopez
    - reminder sent 15/7/22

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

However, the use of references in this way is entirely consistent with the instructions in RFC 8407, so this is OK.

All other designations of references are good.

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

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

> 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 change to any existing RFCs

> 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).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 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.

No new registries

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Search for **** for open items

Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-08.txt

>  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?

The OPSAWG is a broad-spectrum WG, so it is usual for drafts to attract
attention from only a sub-set of the participants.

The document has five front-page authors all of whom have been actively
involved in the authorship and progression of the document.

The WGLC showed careful review and comments from three people, with
support from an additional person.

A further ten people are Acknowledged in the document as having ptovided
helpful review and comments.

This is probably as broad an agreement as this WG would be expected to
reach.

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

No controvery.
Some detailed debate during WGLC, but this seemed to reach consensus.

>  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 appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent.

>  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 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

No one has reported any implementations.
Note that this document is referenced by a TEAS document
(draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability) which discusses a topic that is
likely to lead to implementation, and by the TEAS network slicing
framework (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices) which is likely to mean
that YANG models for the network slice service interface (such as
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang) may come to use it in time.

>  5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or
>    external organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The WGLC was shared with the TEAS working group, which seemed
appropriate. No other cross-review seems necessary.

>  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.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

A YANG Doctor review was carried out by Martin Bjorklund and can be
found in the Datatracker. All issues were addressed.


>  7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of
>    the module been checked with any of the recommended validation
>    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
>    RFC 8342?

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

The document claims that the YANG module conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture. The document shepherd lacks the
expertise to know whether that is true, but there is no reason to
doubt the authors on this.

>  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, ASN.1 modules, etc.

The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or
warnings.

>  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 shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during WGLC
and the authors addressed all of the points raised.

The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
process and found a few remaining, but minor, points: these have also
been addressed in a new revision.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that
>    their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would
>    merit specific attention from subsequent reviews?

I looked at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
I don't see any issues except to note that YANG versioning is still an
open issue in general (this particular module is no better or worse than
any other module in that regard).

> 11. 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?

This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed
Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this
level of maturity.

The document reflects this status corectly and the Datatracker correctly
shows this intention.

> 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all
>    appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
>    been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion
>    and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR)
>    disclosures, including links to relevant emails.

The document contains the regular IETF IPR boilerplate to that all
listed authors who are so listed by their own consent may be assumed to
have agreed to conform to the BCPs.

The WG chairs requested that the authors confirm conformance with the
BCPs in a mail to the list on 2022-04-22
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/

Responses from three of the authors can be found on that thread
(M. Boucadair, S. Barguil, Q. Wu)

**** Responses pending from O. Gonzalez de Dios, V. Lopez
    - reminder sent 15/7/22

There are no document Contributors in this case.

The mail, by its existence, drew the attention of all mailing list
participants to the needs set out in the BCPs although it did not
explicitly request conformance.

> 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page
>    is greater than 5, please provide a justification.

There are five authors on the front page.
Each is well aware that they are named on the front page and none has
objected.

> 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits
>    tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of
>    Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough;
>    please review the entire guidelines document.

idnits runs clean

I also checked https://authors.ietf.org/en/protocol-checklist which
doesn't seem to raise any issues.

I also worked through each of the sections on
https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview No other issues
occur noting that:
- There is no Privacy Considerations section and, indeed, no mention of
  privacy. This seems to be satisfactory for this document.
- There is no Implementation Status section. The authors have no
  implementation status to report.
- There is one use of "traditional". This could be changed, but seems
  harmless as used.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

It is uncomfortable that some of the Reference clauses are to I-Ds that
appear as informative references. These are not essential references
for understanding the module, but they are fairly important for
understanding specific objects.

***** Email sent to list 2022-07-17

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

All normative references are freely available.

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP
>    97)? If so, list them.

No Downrefs

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist,
>    what is the plan for their completion?

None such

***** But see 15.

> 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 change to any existing RFCs

> 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).

The document shepherd checked the IANA considerations section:
- for clarity: it's clear
- for the use of the correct registries: they are
- for conformance with the allocation policies for those registries: it
  conforms
- for completeness with the rest of the document: it is

> 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.

No new registries

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
- All issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios - reminder sent 15/7/22
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez - reminder sent 15/7/22

idnits
- clean on -08

YANG compilation
- 0 errors, 0 warnings on -08

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez

idnits
- clean on -08

YANG compilation
- 0 errors, 0 warnings on -08

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/A-VrwuOM6n4LFt4QhmQ48aeWSS0/
-Responses
M. Boucadair - Yes, on thread
* O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil - Yes, on thread
Q. Wu - Yes, on thread
* V. Lopez

idnits
* check

YANG compilation
* check

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Document shepherd review
- Complete and sent to authors plus mailing list
- New revision posted
* check all issues addressed

IPR poll
- Sent to list
* Find URL
* Check responses
M. Boucadair
O. Gonzalez de Dios
S. Barguil
Q. Wu
V. Lopez

idnits
* check

YANG compilation
* check

Document Shepherd Write-Up
* Complete it