(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?
Standards Track. It should be reasonable for a YANG model to be a standard, unless it is an experiment. IGMP and MLD snooping is well understood and should not be an experiment.
(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:
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
configure and manage Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping devices. The YANG module in
this document conforms to Network Management Datastore Architecture
Working Group Summary
The WG has a YANG model design team. 5 member of the team (from a handful of vendors) have worked on this. It is based on implementations from these and other vendors. This indicates good vendor support. Aside from this, only 4 people supported the document for the WGLC, but none have raised any issues during the WGLC or in the WG otherwise.
A handful of vendors have worked on this and may be implementing it. At least 2 members of the WG have done a careful review, and a YANG doctor early review was also done.
Stig Venaas is the shepherd, Alvaro Retana is the AD.
(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 shepherd believes the document is in good shape, although the shepherd has limited YANG knowledge.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There was an early YANG doctor review that found some issues. I believe the should be resolved. There are some errors compiling the model though.
(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
Early YANG doctor review was done. It would be good to get another check to see if everything is fine now.
(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
(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.
Yes, all authors have stated that they are not aware of any IPR.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(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?
At least 9 people are in support (5 of them authors), none are against. Wide range of vendors involved.
While we would have liked more people to review it, it is hard to get much responses to YANG models.
(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.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
There are some minor nits as found by the tool, and YANG validation
has a few issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The early YANG doctor review only found minor issues, which should be addressed in version 08.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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?
Yes, there are many normative references to YANG related documents. These will hopefully be published soon.
(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.
Yes, there is a reference to the informational RFC 4541.
(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.
(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).
The IANA considerations are clear and they are inline with other YANG models.
(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.
No new registries.
(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, etc.
Checked idnits and YANG compilation in the tracker.