Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

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? The proposed status is BCP (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 This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module Tree Diagrams. The purpose of the document is to provide a single location for this definition. This syntax may be updated from time to time based on the evolution of the YANG language. Working Group Summary Yang tree diagrams are perhaps unusually for yang not intended specifically to be machine readable, but rather to display with maximum legibility spinlified graphical representations of modules. the dicussion that led to the current formulation is therefore somewhat unusual territory for netmod. Nevertheless, the current approach has broad working-group support. Document Quality There are known implementations of yang tree-diagram rendering which produce results consistent with this document. Personnel Joel Jaeggli is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise is the responsible area director. (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. The document shephard has performed a close reading of the document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherd has no particular concerns regarding the review depth of of the document. Interestingly enough there does not appear to be much reason to perform yang doctor review on this document as it has neither a model nor interoperability or architecture considerations for yang embedded within the work. (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. (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 specific concerns are present. (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. The shepherd is not aware of any IPR or IPR claims having been made. The history on the document shows the question having been asked of authors and the working group. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR claim have been files. (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? WGLC, showed solid consensus for publication. minor changes were made to address last call comments these are visible in draft 04/05 diffs https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt (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 appeal is anticipated. (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. IDNITs complains about white space in one diagram, given the complexity and the fact that legibility is the intended goal this is expected. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Theoretically this would be reviewed by yang doctors but as noted that review may be of limited value. there are no yang validation reviews required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Informative references are identified. No normative references appear to be required. (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? ietf-netmod-schema-mount ietf-rtgwg-ni-model are hopefully completed soon as well. (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. none are required. (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 additional RFCs are modified by this document. (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). No considerations are required of IANA. (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. None are required. (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. No formal code validation is required. 

Back