Document History
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? This draft has been in the WG for a long time and there was
consensus of publication.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? No. There were some discussions of
terminology and being consistent with RFC8349.
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.
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)? This document augments RFC 8349 with some industry well-recognized RIB
entries, and there are proprietary implementations of the same content defined
in this document.
Additional Reviews
5. 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. No. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC
review and two rounds of YANG Doctor reviews.
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. This document has gone through Routing Directorate LC review and two
rounds of YANG Doctor reviews.
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 YANG module and the example defined in this document have been
verified by the tools suggested, and it complies with RFC 8342.
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, etc. The example in appendix B
has been verified as XML and JSON.
Document Shepherd Checks
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? Yes.
10. 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.
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?
Proposed Standard.
12. 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. There is no IPR filed against this
document.
13. 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.
There are two authors on this document and they both have been contributing to
this document.
14. 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.) No remaining I-D nits.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References. No.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references? NA.
17. 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.
18. 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?
No.
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.
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 IANA considerations look
good to the shepherd.
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.
N/A – only standard YANG registries are needed.