Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server
# 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/
Back