Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-nmop-terminology
===
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
## 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?
Yes, the document represent a strong consensus within the WG.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No specific controversy, but “normal” divergence of some options for some specific
terms (e.g., root cause). The editor actively sought for more feedback when
the consensus is not clear for some items and always indicated a rationale for
rejecting some proposed changes. No dispute was raised.
A side meeting was organized in IETF#120 to discuss a set of issues and main outcome
and pending ones were then presented to WG. Authors did a cross check of all adopted
NMOP documents and identified some alignment actions. These actions were discussed
and then agreed and implemented by authors of all NMOP documents.
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. The discussion and exchanges were very productive with always a positive tone
by the participants and the Editor.
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)?
N/A.
## 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.
Because some terms are also used by other areas, early reviews were requested
prior to Dublin IETF#121 meeting.
The WG sought early in the process feedback from various areas (OPS-DIR, IOTDIR,
SECDIR, RTGDIR, GENART, INTDIR). As part the WGLC, the WG solicited various
areas to check that issues raised in the first round were adequately handled.
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.
N/A.
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]?
N/A.
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.
N/A.
## 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?
The document is well-written and complete per the scope set by the WG for this effort.
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?
No further review is needed.
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?
The intended status is Informational. This is adequately indicated in the front
page and also in the Datatracker. This status is justified given the nature of
the document with a set of term definitions.
This document may be normatively referenced by other documents, though.
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, polls were run the Chairs prior to call for adoption and also in preparation
to the WGLC.
• CFA relies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ydBUZbc-RodsZj4RLISi0PifktU/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/aHo73_gJyOWv1BNHln3O8dPqhZ4/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/QYdd4fzU-mFusPfZGfz0iTj7ySc/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/ZyNCfJAShps40of0nQpwiFH8CrY/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/16TFLL6Zm7kzqRS8LztDba8Rg0w/
• WGLC replies:
o Nigel: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/j8vz9F8MyQ9qQDnvvhSGrGCaxik/
o Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/FbbyGC2iyvgOBCUstiZ4IbS6wx8/
o Qin: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/9u7C4RTqDBgf1D95IJdZ4SJ4CGM/
o Thomas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/hyghGmiJOmXlHLy_NLbnUok46L8/
o Chaode: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmop/zrpeims9j50sLhjZy8dSHZU73lE/
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, as evidenced by the replies to various IPR polls.
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.)
The document is admirably idnits-free!
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No, the current reference classification is sound.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
N/A. All references are Informative.
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.
N/A. All references are Informative.
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?
N/A. All references are Informative.
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.
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]).
This document does not create any registry. The IANA section is clear about this.
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.
N/A. This document does not create any registry that require DE review.
[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