Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag

# 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?

Shepherd: Pretty strong consensus.  Several prominent WG members were heavily involved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
   the consensus was particularly rough?

Shepherd: The 3GPP submitted https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/2072/ hoping that this
          draft would address their need.  This document partially addresses their need
          without precluding the ability for a future definition to fully address their
          need.  To be clear, this document defines an ability for a server to report
          what nodes it believes to be immutable, with it being out-of-scope for why/how
          the server thinks nodes are immutable.  3GPP wants the "why/how" part to be
          standardized. The liaison response welcomes their participation in the WG. 

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.)

Shepherd: Not yet, but Balazs Lengyel, who submitted the aforementioned liaison,
          consistently reminds the WG that the document does not fully address the
          3GPP liaison.  It's possible that he will submit an appeal.  That said, as
          previously mentioned, this document does not preclude a future definition
          to fully address their concern, and thus it does not make sense to block
          this document from progressing.

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)?

Shepherd: Appendix C (Existing Implementations) lists known implementations.

## 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.

Shepherd: No, this document is exclusively a NETMOD (and NETCONF) concern.
          NETCONF WG members are already actively involved in NETMOD.

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.

Shepherd: There was a YANG Doctor review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-\
          ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-06-yangdoctors-early-andersson-2026-01-05.
          It was "Ready w/ Issues".  

          The issues were addressed here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/\
          netmod/?q=draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-06%20early%20Yangdoctors%20review

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]?

Shepherd: For the two YANG modules in the document ("ietf-immutable-annotation" and
          "example-user-group") The command `pyang -f yang --yang-line-length 69 \
          --keep-comments FILE` produced no differences.  

          These "ietf-immutable-annotation" module not only complies with NMDA, it
          extends NMDA (for NETCONF).

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.

Shepherd: both `pyang` and `yanglint` parse the modules without errors.

## 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?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off 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?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

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?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

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.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here: 
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jh5JXtvraZozmZCEcQr1zL-Y0HQ

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.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has four 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.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows one error, one warning, and one comment.
          - The error is for a line too long, which I'm unable to find.
          - The warning is for a crufty reference to the "system-config"
            draft, which is currently with the IESG. 
          - The comment is for the document date being in the past.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

Shepherd: All references are in the correct Normative/Informative sections.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

Shepherd: There are no normative references that are not 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.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

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?

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: Both RFC8040 and RFC8526 are updated.  Both are listed on the title
          page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction.

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]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

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.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[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