Subject: [Netconf] 4741bis is back in the hands of our AD: <draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07.txt> for publication as PS RFC

From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:26:40 +0100

Since I did not see any comments, it is now back in our AD's
capable hands.

Bert

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Request to consider for publication as PS RFC
Date: 	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:24:56 +0100
From: 	Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked], Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>

Hi Dan, thanks for HOLDing the revision 6 that I
had originally submitted. We have in the meanwhile made
a few small (mainly editorial) changes to.

The new modified writeup is below.

Bert Wijnen
Document shepherd

----
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Bert Wijnen is the document shepherd.
Yes, I have reviewed the document many times, including this
version 7, that I believe is ready for forwarding to
the AD/IESG (this is a small, mainly editorial update after
the revision 06 was on HOLD in the AD Queue).

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG
members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document
Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The document has had wide review and re-reviews of NETCONF
WG members. I do not have any concerns regarding the level
of review for this document.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the
document needs more review from a particular or broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity,
someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML?

I do not believe any extra special review (other than
normal IETF Last Call) is needed.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I do not have any specific concerns.
No IPR disclosure been filed as far as we know.

(1.e) 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?

The content of the document has strong WG consensus.

(1.f) 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 entered into the ID Tracker.)

No-one has threatened with an appeal or expressed extreme
discontent.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Document passes ID-nits (as shown by the IETF idnits tool:
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/
draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-07.txt

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are split in Normative and Informative. All normative
documents have been published except draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4742bis,
but that is also being submitted for IESG consideration as
proposed standard.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA considerations are present and complete. No new namespaces are
created and so no new Expert is needed.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

The YANG and XSD modules have been checked by Martin Bjorklund.
XSD also checked by co-chair Mehmet and I (Bert) have checked YANG.
Both are found to be valid.

(1.k) 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

    The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in
    this document provides mechanisms to install, manipulate,
    and delete the configuration of network devices. It uses
    an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding
    for the configuration data as well as the protocol
    messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are realized
    as Remote Procedure Calls (RPC).

    This revision of the document clarifies some text and
    fixes some minor bugs as found from implementatition
    experience of rfc4741.

Working Group Summary

   The working group went over several versions of the
   document. The comments and reviews helped improve the
   document a lot and brought us to consensus on the
   7th revision of the docuemnt.

Document Quality

   There are implementations of this protocol, and in fact
   the rfc4741bis revision is based on implementation
   experience of that rfc.