# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.
Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.
## 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?
“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" can be
considered reasonable for this document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
The comments that were brought during the process were incorporated into the
document with good consensus. I did not find controversy in any point. The
modifications that were more complex were taken to the working group for
discussion.
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 one has threatened an appeal nor indicated extreme discontent.
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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This document updates an existing Yang model, documented in RFC 8776. The YANG
model provides common data types , identities and groupings which are used in
other yang models. The number of documents depending on this particular YANG
model is high. Regarding the model itself, the document does not include an
implementation report. It is expected that groupings specified in this document
would be extensively used in the implementations of other Yang models.
## 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.
The data model provided in this document provides common
types/identities/groupings used by models defined in TEAS and CCAMP. Experts
from both working groups have reviewed the document.
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 document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/
The document has also been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2024-11-15/
The routing directorate comments where 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][4] 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][5]?
Yes, the current version of the YANG module has been checked with recommended
validation tools. Please refer to the YANG validation results on datatracker:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/#
There are currently 0 errors and 0 warnings listed against the YANG module.
The YANG module complies with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in [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 YANG code in the document has been validated using prescribed YANG review
Tools. The document has been reviewed by a YANG Doctor.
## 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, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed (in fact it is
referenced by other documents that depend on this one), written with reasonable
claritify, well structured and complete, ready to be handed off to the
responsible Area Director.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The type of publication being requested is "Standards Track". This is
appropriate for a document that provides a YANG data model with building blocks
reusable in serveral YANG data models.
All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? 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.
The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG
document and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires
IPR compliance statement from all authors and contributors listed in the
document. This document has gone through such a process. Pre-WG adoption IPR
poll. Please refer to entry 2022-06-16 with the results of the poll:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update/history/
Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2024-03-18 and 2034-04-01 at
[Teas] Regarding IPR of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10 In the document
history the entry at 204-04-12 compiles the list of replies
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/history/
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.
The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to
express unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the
front page and 2 other contributors listed later in the document.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
There are I-D nits listed against this document.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.
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 listed normative references are freely available. There is one ITU-T
reference which is freely available to download from ITU-T website.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
No ,there are no normative downward references.
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, there are no normative references which are not either RFC or a standard
ITU-T document.
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.
Yes, this RFC will obsolete RFC 8776.
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][11]).
The allocation requests made to the IANA in this document are appropriate
and the referenced IANA registries are clearly identified. There are no new
IANA registries proposed in this document.
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.
There are no new IANA registries proposed in this document.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/