YANG Groupings for UDP Clients and UDP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-08

# 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## 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.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team review"


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over 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?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


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?

Proposed Standard

“This is the proper type for a document that specifies a data model that is
meant to ease interoperability between management entities.”


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.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


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.

Yes. 3 authors.


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.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.


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?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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/

# 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643

At IETF 122 in a poll the working group decided to keep it as a leaf.
datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-netconf-202503180600/


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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## 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.

YANG Doctor and Transport Area Review Team review has been already requested.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared the  already
requested "Transport Area Review Team review"


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After the early YANG doctor review in section 6 has been addressed and cleared,
the document is ready to be handed over 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?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


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?

Internet Standard


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.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


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.

Yes. 3 authors.


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.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.


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?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised if changes are applied.


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]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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/

# 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever the local-port leaf in ietf-udp-server
should remain, be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643


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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## 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 document would benefit from a YANG Doctor and possibly also from a
Transport Area Review Team review.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared by a "Transport Area
Review Team review"


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After in section 2 described discussion and the early YANG doctor review in
section 6 has been addressed and cleared, the document is ready to be handed
over 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?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


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?

Internet Standard


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.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


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.

Yes. 3 authors.


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.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.


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?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised.


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]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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/

# 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?

The working group received substantial review and feedback and reached a
broad consensus.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

In the WGLC, discussions on wherever leaf local-port in ietf-udp-server should
be a leaf-list with a key or not started and not finished yet.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2I2v8z0NzwxknNQKRu-mtB4ONYc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JGcW_s7aQTzbTxqAXhbx-j0Xagc/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/28V95yw5VhCQh99-kfZpcz3qhNw/

With RFC 9643 this has been discussed as well and decided against a leaf-list.
An implementer has the choice to use another instance to support multiple
local-port's for a udp or tcp server.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yGrkdcOZFIvLTBl0Fu6w__xxUNA/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643


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][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-9
lists 4 udp-notif implementations where udp-client groupings are applied.


## 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 document would benefit from a YANG Doctor and possibly also from a
Transport Area Review Team review.


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.

An early YANG Doctor review has taken place and needs to be addressed by the
authors.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06-yangdoctors-early-schoenwaelder-2025-04-16/

Remarks on "UDP multicast clients" could be cleared by a "Transport Area
Review Team review"


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]?

Both YANG modules are NMDA compliant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06#section-1.2

and have been validated with pyang and yanglint.


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.

pyang and yanglint


## 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?

After in section 2 described discussion and the early YANG doctor review in
section 6 has been addressed and cleared, the document is ready to be handed
over 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?

None of the issues listed applies to this document.


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?

Internet Standard


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.

Yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NncA8JHqZH14wCptMhktgGcngyM/
No IPR was declared.


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.

Yes. 3 authors.


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.)

idnits shows no issues
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-06.txt&submitcheck=True


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

RFC 9110 reference being listed under informative references but not being used.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.


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?

None applicable.


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.

None applicable.

Remark: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9643 defines similar
groupings for TCP. Consistency among both is advised.


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]).

Complies to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-22#section-3.8


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.

None applicable.


[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/