Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-pim-yang-17

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 24 February 2012.

(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. We want this YANG model to be a standard.

(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
The document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure and manage Protocol-Independent Multicast (PIM) devices.

Working Group Summary
A design team with members from more than 6 different vendors have been involved in designing this model. The authors were also working for 6 different vendors when most of the draft was written. There was not much review or feedback from non-authors in the WG, but given the design team and the number of vendors involved, we believe we have good support. All issues that was raised in the 2 working group last calls have been addressed.

Document Quality
Several vendors are planning to implement this. There are operators waiting for this to be ready. The model has also gone through YANG doctor review.

Personnel
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 todraft-i
the IESG.
The shepherd has done a detailed review, and all comments addressed. However I just noticed that the abstract should also mention that it is an operational model or used for management. Not just configuration.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No

(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.
It is worth checking how the YANG model aligns with other models for interfaces, routing, BFD and also etf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. A YANG doctor has reviewed this, but some of these models may also have been updated recently.

(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.
My only concern is the alignment with other IETF YANG models as mentioned above.

(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 claims.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No

(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?   
Given the number of people from at least 6 vendors agreeing on the model and no one raising issues I believe so. The draft has been presented at several meetings and discussed on the mailing list. And there has been thorough discussions in the design team.

(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.) 
No

(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
thorough.
There are some warning about weird spacing. Also it has 2119 boilerplate but no 2119 keywords. There are a couple of references missing in the reference section. Given that there is a draft submission deadline on in a few days I hope the document can still move forward and that this can be addressed as part of the IETF last call.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
It was reviewed by a YANG doctor.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
There are a couple of references in the text that are missing in the references section. I think these should be informative references, although one of them should possibly be normative.

(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 is a normative reference to draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00. It may have to wait for this to complete before publication.

(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. 
No, don't think so.

(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.

No

(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 5226).

It needs addition to existing XML and YANG registries. I believe it is fine, but I'm a bit unfamiliar with what is expected for these registries.

(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.

It was found to compile with the IETF YANG tools. There were some warnings, but these are an issue with the tool, not with the draft.
Back