[CCAMP] **DRAFT** Shepherd writeup "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15"
daniel@olddog.co.uk Mon, 12 September 2022 17:52 UTC
Return-Path: <dk@danielking.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB30C14CF04 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQ6OC34_51p3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A0B6C14CF01 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id d12-20020a05600c34cc00b003a83d20812fso7708928wmq.1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=thread-index:content-language:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:to:from:sender:from:to:cc :subject:date; bh=k65wW9fAdNX+CtG1THWhmOUn3yTH06mHJAExe5fvHyo=; b=wOisTETloMf8X1/ZiasGKD9WOoGOfn+h2VYEbFGF36MGbNc4NWiOtHzvdxXeHLUl4B cHvUBDq1Hy3PnkXQJYDRwHX0Y8sTg06zzXcBpZKsnWHJGlT2AUW7mjQ4AGzjvP2vnmiP iVYH11ZBS52e45AKeJqr2ZS9JDLvhBB1WaS7+0WHE2C2Cr7M8FGKOQRpW9xAv9jSSGua 6FDpquZN+4+3PW77QI7LQ5+qmojsbeOCe+vICqRLBzFxPMYf6wI64Klf5mpEA65v125/ 3f4JVry1beR2DrK3m2GNcOsyfmJejZm5Va7D+30dToatjz+BscObMOHke0ZUHt4LElyu z+nQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=thread-index:content-language:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:to:from:sender :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=k65wW9fAdNX+CtG1THWhmOUn3yTH06mHJAExe5fvHyo=; b=A96bqI2sK6jyGwMcscl5rogdfcBFQgAPBuhKNFdIAZZ720zhrjT7yWcWBaC2yYNqlr NfTR2KR+PHR6wmKCuspuqxP8WxFpOgefAeTfC3+a+j5pu3Mf8Qm3NlNTCbkBmgqceK3B 6toCvfkqw2Mudc5TyHGsjZIJ439phRPtcXa59ZNuWEMGL9pt4tZ2n81xk7GEecroMwJe FCc0FOjULSba9xQXjqeh71+XbKChwsu9Tib2+37BRegihiTbKq1/5J61IA25mO3C886Z 1CtjzLY5RmC84hHsf1O9kEeQxTJ+MJTgflELDZq+VNMYAmddpibZ8/nz4AH/iL7o/W8q wANw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1QMuhOy2J/pTobthAUvoLfDfrKL85dnvrm6FAKMzIRoOCUxn1X v/xgT3oFq8y2p2T/1J/Dcw9VK40xLFZe3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR45IVXYRXowcpkOJXEFQBpreKNuej3hRWKTjzsm1hEM9RXSTd7Y1iqg02poSWr/YOTISmNmEw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6a17:0:b0:3b4:84af:8f75 with SMTP id f23-20020a1c6a17000000b003b484af8f75mr5199817wmc.53.1663005119537; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CIPHER ([2a00:23c7:105:2801:5109:8926:379d:261b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c7-20020a05600c0ac700b003a331c6bffdsm10859452wmr.47.2022.09.12.10.51.58 for <ccamp@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Daniel King <dk@danielking.net>
X-Google-Original-Sender: <dk@danielking.net>
From: daniel@olddog.co.uk
To: 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 18:51:58 +0100
Message-ID: <06e001d8c6d0$5ad6e680$1084b380$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AdjG0DU0v4NBiOoiRE25IwgzTlrwVg==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/YszQfpXAKP8iro8R6suWdMMS4NM>
Subject: [CCAMP] **DRAFT** Shepherd writeup "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15"
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 17:52:07 -0000
Dear WG, Chairs, et al. Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15). This is a draft version as I have provided a detailed review of the I-D and a list of minor suggestions to address readability, English and NITs. Once the authors submit the new version of the I-D, I will update the write-up and submit. BR, Dan. # 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? DK>> The document has five authors, and 11 contributors. This represents a significant slice of active CCAMP participants. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? DK>> No. There has been no controversy surrounding the direction and contents of this I-D. This I-D is directly related to draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14. The English required cleaning up, this has been performed and readability suggestions have been provided to the authors. 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.) DK>> No appeal threatened. No extreme discontent apparent. 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)? DK>> The authors have not reported specific vendor implementations. However, several research papers have reference the proposed standard and proof of concepts, early implementations look likely. ## 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. DK>> No Cross SDO review was conducted, or looks to be required. However, the authors did pay attention to specific language used across SDO's, including the ITU-T (SG15) and MEF. 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. DK>> The I-D and YANG was reviewed by multiple YANG experts. During YANG DOCTOR Review several minor suggestions were made, and these have been addressed. During Last Call, there was a suggestion to improve the YANG tree descriptions. This continues to be an ongoing discussion between the authors and YANG expert, some key references needing updating to ensure their dates were accurate - the current status of this conversation https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CbXlOieebaefZVn2NnL_ppIVbeI/. 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]? DK>> The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings. The model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA). 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. DK>> The Datatracker shows the YANG to compile cleanly with no errors or warnings. 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? DK>> The document shepherd reviewed this document in some detail during Last Call, and has provided the authors several suggestions for improving the document addressing Last Call comments from other reviewers. A new version of the I-D is expected, then the I-D can be handed 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? DK>> No significant issues exist, except to note that YANG versioning continues to be a general issue. 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? DK>> This document requests publication on the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard. This is appropriate for an implementable YANG model at this level of maturity. The intended status of the I-D is accurately reflected in the Datatracker. 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. DK>> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang. The IPR declaration collection was successfully completed on 22 August, 2022. 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. DK>> Responses from all of the authors and contributors were received and are tracked in the Datatracker History. The number of authors listed on the front page does not exceed 5. 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.) DK>> The idnits tool has no errors, 4 warnings and 2 comments. The Shepherd has provided some suggestions to address these minor issues. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. DK>> The use of normative and informative references looks to be correct. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? DK>> All normative references are freely available. 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. 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? 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. DK>> No. 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]). DK>> The IANA section is straightforward and the requests are clear. It references the correct registries, and the requests conform with the allocation policies for those registries. 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. DK>> No new registries required. [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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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-refe rences/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/