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