Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

> 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)?

Standards Track

> Why is this the proper type of RFC?
It contains a new YANG model and has impact on other on-wire behavior.

>Is this type of RFC indicated in the
> title page header?

> (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
>   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>   and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>   or introduction.
   This document defines a YANG data model for representing, retrieving
   and manipulating Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies. The model
   serves as a base model that other technology specific TE Topology
   models can augment.

> Working Group Summary
>   Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>   example, was there controversy about particular points or
>   were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>   rough?

This work has occupied good attention within the WG as well as has been
coordinated with the I2RS, CCAMP, and MPLS WGs.  It is a the
foundational model for technology specific TE topology models.

This document  was in the RFC editor queue - it was pulled back to make a
change informed by implementation.

> Document Quality
>   Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>   implement the specification?

Authors from different organizations have stated that there are

> Are there any reviewers that
>   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>   what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>   review, on what date was the request posted?

There has been reasonable discussion on list about the document both
before and as part of LC.  A YANG Doctor review has been conducted per
normal process.

> Personnel
>   Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area  Director?

Deborah Brungard

> (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 IESG.

I reviewed the document both as it was progressing and in it's final
form.  I also checked the output Yang Validation (via data tracker) and
ID nits returned no errors.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


> (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.

This document has been subject to wide review and was in the RFC editor queue -
it was pulled back to make a change informed by implementation.

> (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.

No current concerns.  This document  was in the RFC editor queue - it was
pulled back to make a change informed by implementation.

> (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.


> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

> (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?

Generally solid, with a reasonable number being interested in and
reviewing this work. No objections.

> (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 and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

All errors are resolved.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
See above WRT YANG Doctors (review requested per process.)

> (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?

There are 1 normative reference to in progress work which is in publications
requested state.

> (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.

> (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 5226).
The IANA section is consistent and matches the general form recommended
in RFC6087bis.

> (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.

> (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.

I checked the output of Yang Validation (via data tracker) and online
ID nits.