Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents:
* draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08
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?
The consensus representes the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
most WG participants being silent. Given the very niche expertise involved,
this is not surprising.
>Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>the consensus was particularly rough?
There was very little controversy.
> 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.
> 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,
> neither in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?
This document is architecture document.
Huawei has a prototype implementation of this architecture and specifically of the YANG module.
>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 deals with YANG and services. While the L2 services used as
examples are not strictly within the normal IETF waist, the provisioning
these services has been done in the IETF for some decades.
> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
no reviews were needed for the architecture document
>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?
Yes: 0 errors, 0 warnings
>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, etc.
>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?
yes.
> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?
no.
> 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?
yes.
> 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? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.
yes.
> 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.
Not a problem.
> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There are no significant idnits.
} -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7895
} (Obsoleted by RFC 8525)
> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.
The list seems correct.
> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?
None.
> 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.
No.
> 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?
The two documents cross-reference each other, but are going to the IESG at
the same time.
> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
no.
> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
There isn't a significant section.