[CCAMP] **DRAFT** Shepherd writeup for "draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14"

[[e-mail]]

Dear WG, Chairs, et al. 

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for YANG Data Model for Layer 1
Types (draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-14). This is a draft version as I have
provided a detailed review of the I-D and provided the authors with 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 two authors, and 9 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-otn-topo-yang-15. The Shepherd has provided several
suggestions for readability and English improvements. 

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. The YANG code compiles with zero errors or warnings.  

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-layer1-types. An IPR poll was issued, and all authors and
contributors responded to the list, except for Yunbo Li who responded to the
CCAMP co-chair, who then forwarded the response to the list.  

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 one error, 5 warnings and 7 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/