YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-41

[Ballot discuss]
BCP 81 says the registration contact has to be the IESG for things developed by the IETF.  Why does one of them list IANA as the contact?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-39

Thank you for the work put into this document, with its companion I-Ds, this represents a huge work.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Jeff Hartley  for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus and the (light) justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Warning about Yangcatalog.org

The Python code in the annex generates several errors when the RFC is validated by yangcatalog.org. While expected, it would be nice to have some text about this issue in the shepherd write-up.

## Section 1

Suggestion: be consistent with the use of double-quotes

s/This document only defines that the IANA module exists/This document *assumes* that the IANA module exists/ ?

## Section 2

`Note that TLS1.2 only uses TLS Cipher Suites` seems to contradict the previous sentence "should". Rewording would make this paragraph easier to read.

## Section 2.2

To be honest, I was about to ballot DISCUSS on this point, but I have already balloted too many discuss point on this nice set of I-Ds.

The example has `tls11`, which is no more a version defined in this document.

## Section 2.3

I see three authors for the YANG module but only one of them is the I-D author. Any reason why ?

## Section 3.1.1

A short description of the 7 features would help the reader even if their names are somehow self-descriptive. In my own case, it took me 3 minutes to understand the use of server-auth-x509-cert by reading the actual YANG module description of the features.

## Section A.1

I wonder why the module contains algorithms that were deprecated together with TLS 1.1

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Abstract

Please be consistent with the use of double quotes around IETF & IANA.

Also, unsure whether stating the module names in the abstract is more useful or cumbersome ;-)

[Ballot discuss]
As mentioned in the ssh-client-server draft, I struggle to understand when it is assumed that the security considerations of the imported modules apply, and when they will be surfaced as issues in the module that is using them.  With that confusion in mind:

** Section 5.3 and 5.4
  None of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are
  considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.  The NACM
  "default-deny-all" extension has not been set for any data nodes
  defined in this module.

  Please be aware that this module uses the "key" and "private-key"
  nodes from the "ietf-crypto-types" module
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types], where said nodes have the NACM
  extension "default-deny-all" set, thus preventing unrestricted read-
  access to the cleartext key values.

It is difficult for me to reconcile these two paragraphs.  The first says there is nothing read sensitive in this YANG module.  The second paragraph helpfully reminds us there are potentially sensitive private keys in the module.  Additionally, from an OPSEC perspective, knowing which client/EE certificates is held by a device might reveal information useful to an attacker.

Section 5.4 has similar language.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Barry Leiba for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.*
    The protocol-accessible read-only node for the algorithms supported
    by a server is mildly sensitive

What is meant by “mildly sensitive”?

[Ballot discuss]
Two minor DISCUSS points that are likely easy to resolve.

1) 2.2 examples

This example uses tls11 and tls12. It would be better to use tls12 and tls13
as examples as tls11 is on its way to being deprecated. also "identity tls11"
is not defined in the document but they are for 1.2 and 1.3.

It claims in "identity tls12" that it's status is "deprecated"

I don't see that (yet) in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp195/
or at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/documents/

1.2 is obsoleted by 1.3, but is not yet deprecated. I'm also not sure
why the "status" field needs to be there at all? What is the purpose of
this field? I read the description and it related to MUST NOT actions, but
I'm unsure what the difference is between not having the the entry (eg the
entire "identity tls12") or having the entry with the included "status"
field ? (again, sorry I am not a Yang Doctor)

2) !-- USE ONLY ONE AT A TIME

I am confused about this directive. Is it to the RFC Editor for generating
the yang? For the implementer to only allow one? For the user to only define
one?

What it you want to migrate from one method to another in a cloud of machines,
and you cannot update them all at once? Wouldn't having more than one give
you a proper migration path?

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-38
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S2.1.2

* "used to specific" -> "used to specify"

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-37. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

four new namespaces will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-tls-common
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-common
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-tls-client
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-client
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

ID: yang:ietf-tls-server
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-server
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated and completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry in the YANG Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

four new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

Name: iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs
Prefix: tlscsa
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-tls-common
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-common
Prefix: tlscmn
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-tls-client
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-client
Prefix: tlsc
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Name: ietf-tls-server
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tls-server
Prefix: tlss
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

Third, a new YANG Module is to be added to the YANG Modules available at:

https://www.iana.org/protocols

The new module will be named: iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs YANG Module. The contents of the module will be copied from Appendix A.1 of the current draft.

IANA Question --> Is the intent of the authors to have IANA first publish the IANA Module based on Appendix A.1 and then update it to reflect any recent additions to the "TLS Cipher Suites" sub-registry of the "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters" registry?

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

LGTM. Same comment as for SSH with the naming choices.

Separately, the descriptions of TLS ciphersuites, which I assume are just free-form strings, do not match those in the registry, which seems unwise. I get that you might need to translate '_' into '-' for YANG identifiers, but that seems gratuitous for descriptions.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server@ietf.org, jeff.hartley@commscope.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS
Servers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-12. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines three YANG 1.1 modules: the first defines
  features and groupings common to both TLS clients and TLS servers,
  the second defines a grouping for a generic TLS client, and the third
  defines a grouping for a generic TLS server.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5054: Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS Authentication (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc6209: Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc6367: Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc8492: Secure Password Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational - Independent Submission)
    rfc8998: ShangMi (SM) Cipher Suites for TLS 1.3 (Informational - Independent Submission)
    rfc9150: TLS 1.3 Authentication and Integrity-Only Cipher Suites (Informational - Independent Submission)
    rfc9189: GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 (Informational - Independent Submission)

Suggest removing TLS 1.0/TLS 1.1 support, then should be good to go.

Actions for Rob:
- Check with SEC ADs regarding deprecated identities.
- Check with IESG/IANA/RFC Editor about including the source IANA module in publication.

Document Shepherd tempated for "YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers"
  Current draft: draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-30
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server/
  Jeff Hartley - jeff.hartley@commscope.com
  2022-09-05
 
Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?
A-1. This document was authored as part of the NETCONF WG, as part of a suite of inter-related documents.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/documents/

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?
A-2. All outstanding debates around the CONTENTS of the files and data models appear to have been resolved, including significant debate around TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.3.  According to the mailing list, there have been numerous debates around process, tooling, delays, IANA dependencies, and lack of forward momentum throughout the development of these files -- none of these are relevant to the actual contents of the document nor YANG models themselves.

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.)
A-3. The debates around tools/process/orgs are not pertinent to the publication of this specific document.  Those may be best solved at IETF meetings, between the teams/WGs themselves.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
A-4. These documents and data models describle configuration and management of INSTANCES of protocols on network elements; they do not define the protocols themselves.  Despite that, early implementation & adoption of the YANG defined by this document is already widespread:
- Multiple open-source implementations (such as CESNET's "netopeer2" tool) have found early drafts useful enough to develop code that consumes these data models as dependencies.
- External Standards-Defining Organizations (such as the BroadBand Forum's TR-451, OB-BAA, WT-477, and WT-477) are depending on the completion of these data models in order to include them as prerequisite dependencies for standard interoperability between implementing systems.  Early drafts of BBF YANG models incorporating all of the draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server I-D draft models have been successful, including first-hard work by this Document Shepherd and peer reviewers at the BBF.
- Multiple additional IETF drafts have been developed which import these data models as dependencies (see NETCONF WG Documents list).


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.
A-5. Yes.  This Document Shepherd came to volunteer time specifically as a representative of the BroadBand Forum, having previously tracked, reviewed, and test-implemented earlier drafts of these data models.  CESNET, cited above, also did an earlier adoption of draft models, and this Document Shepherd has also performed tests using their implementation.  Thus practical "hands-on" with multiple iterations of previous and current drafts have taken place outside of normal IETF work.

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.
A-6. YANGDOCTORS and SECDIR have both reviewed recent revisions, and their concerns have been factored into subsequent revisions.  Separately, IANA's latest lists of dependencies (ciphersuites, key algorithms, etc.) were updated and incorporated in the final revisions.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?
A-7. Yes.  YANG validation is complete, 0 errors, 0 warnings.  Document authors and YANG contributors likewise run local valdation post-editing using best common "strict" and "lint" tool chain settings.

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.
A-8. Both pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 1.9.2 validation are automatically included in the document compilation process.


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?
A-9. This document and its associated data models are of critical importance to adjacent Standards-Defining Organizations and their associated communities.  The documentation portion is clearly written and sufficiently describes noteworthy aspects.  The modules themselves are functional and have multiple early implementations despite being pre-release data models.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
A-10. There are various nits that have been cleaned up already, and a few lingering "related but non-impactful" discussions that are commonplace throughout IETF WGs and meetings.  There are no obvious lingering action items requiring resolution.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
A-11. Internet Standard, along with the set of associated documents and data models described in "1.1.  Relation to other RFCs" within the document itself.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
A-12.  The call for IPR was made and answered -- there is no IPR.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ev8t_xw8XaTbKEclfwKhMXdU0nU/

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.
A-13. Yes.  The author lines are present.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
A-14. There are two "nits" regarding optional/unintended usage of these files that are not actually practical "problems":
- A YANG expert commented that an optional "refine" feature of YANG itself could be used to create unintended reuse of the YANG groupings.  This is true, but it's not useful to attempt to document every unintended usage of any data model.
- There is a slightly relevant comment about an unlikely scenario where all 4 cases of a mandatory choice COULD theoreticlly be left unused.  However, in actual practice with these same data models & versions, this results in an obviously-invalid configuration, thus the existing file is indeed adequate.  I.e., it's likely unproductive to attempt to document all the possible incorrect usage scenarios, when the correct usage of all four options ARE already documented.
- A TLS expert who is not a YANG expert declined to review the YANG syntax, but that the normal-text portions of the document were acceptable.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
A-15. All Normative and Informative References are defined.  In addition, there are Normative references between the inter-related documents and data models described in section "1.1.  Relation to other RFCs" within the document itself. (See A-17 and A-18 below.)

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
A-17. This will logistically be challenging to implement, because this set of I-Ds and their data models are interconnected, and thus must be reviewed and posted to DOWNREF ~simultaneously.
Specifically:
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-trust-anchors]
     
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?
A-18. This is tied to A-17, as these files are a "locked set" and must go through the approval process ~simultaneously.
Specifically:
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-trust-anchors]

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.
A-19. No. This document and these data models are additive.  The data models in this document consume existing RFCs' data models as dependencies.

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).
A-20. This Document Shepard directly participated in the updating of the YANG model content specifically generated from the updated IANA registries.  Appendix A describes in some detail how the IANA registries are applied in YANG.

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.
A-21. The file "iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs@2022-06-16.yang" specifically names the 'TLS Cipher Suites' sub-registry of the 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters' registry maintained by IANA.  Updated data was specifically pulled from the IANA source page and edited into the data model file.

Document Shepherd tempated for "YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers"
  Current draft: draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-30
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server/
  Jeff Hartley - jeff.hartley@commscope.com
  2022-09-05
 
Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
work item there?
A-1. This document was authored as part of the NETCONF WG, as part of a suite of inter-related documents.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/documents/

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
the document?
A-2. All outstanding debates around the CONTENTS of the files and data models appear to have been resolved, including significant debate around TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.3.  According to the mailing list, there have been numerous debates around process, tooling, delays, IANA dependencies, and lack of forward momentum throughout the development of these files -- none of these are relevant to the actual contents of the document nor YANG models themselves.

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.)
A-3. The debates around tools/process/orgs are not pertinent to the publication of this specific document.  Those may be best solved at IETF meetings, between the teams/WGs themselves.

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
A-4. These documents and data models describle configuration and management of INSTANCES of protocols on network elements; they do not define the protocols themselves.  Despite that, early implementation & adoption of the YANG defined by this document is already widespread:
- Multiple open-source implementations (such as CESNET's "netopeer2" tool) have found early drafts useful enough to develop code that consumes these data models as dependencies.
- External Standards-Defining Organizations (such as the BroadBand Forum's TR-451, OB-BAA, WT-477, and WT-477) are depending on the completion of these data models in order to include them as prerequisite dependencies for standard interoperability between implementing systems.  Early drafts of BBF YANG models incorporating all of the draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server I-D draft models have been successful, including first-hard work by this Document Shepherd and peer reviewers at the BBF.
- Multiple additional IETF drafts have been developed which import these data models as dependencies (see NETCONF WG Documents list).


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.
A-5. Yes.  This Document Shepherd came to volunteer time specifically as a representative of the BroadBand Forum, having previously tracked, reviewed, and test-implemented earlier drafts of these data models.  CESNET, cited above, also did an earlier adoption of draft models, and this Document Shepherd has also performed tests using their implementation.  Thus practical "hands-on" with multiple iterations of previous and current drafts have taken place outside of normal IETF work.

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.
A-6. YANGDOCTORS and SECDIR have both reviewed recent revisions, and their concerns have been factored into subsequent revisions.  Separately, IANA's latest lists of dependencies (ciphersuites, key algorithms, etc.) were updated and incorporated in the final revisions.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?
A-7. Yes.  YANG validation is complete, 0 errors, 0 warnings.  Document authors and YANG contributors likewise run local valdation post-editing using best common "strict" and "lint" tool chain settings.

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.
A-8. Both pyang 2.5.3 and yanglint 1.9.2 validation are automatically included in the document compilation process.


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?
A-9. This document and its associated data models are of critical importance to adjacent Standards-Defining Organizations and their associated communities.  The documentation portion is clearly written and sufficiently describes noteworthy aspects.  The modules themselves are functional and have multiple early implementations despite being pre-release data models.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
A-10. There are various nits that have been cleaned up already, and a few lingering "related but non-impactful" discussions that are commonplace throughout IETF WGs and meetings.  There are no obvious lingering action items requiring resolution.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
A-11. Internet Standard, along with the set of associated documents and data models described in "1.1.  Relation to other RFCs" within the document itself.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
A-12.  The call for IPR was made and answered -- there is no IPR.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Ev8t_xw8XaTbKEclfwKhMXdU0nU/

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.
A-13. Yes.  The author lines are present.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
A-14. There are two "nits" regarding optional/unintended usage of these files that are not actually practical "problems":
- A YANG expert commented that an optional "refine" feature of YANG itself could be used to create unintended reuse of the YANG groupings.  This is true, but it's not useful to attempt to document every unintended usage of any data model.
- There is a slightly relevant comment about an unlikely scenario where all 4 cases of a mandatory choice COULD theoreticlly be left unused.  However, in actual practice with these same data models & versions, this results in an obviously-invalid configuration, thus the existing file is indeed adequate.  I.e., it's likely unproductive to attempt to document all the possible incorrect usage scenarios, when the correct usage of all four options ARE already documented.
- A TLS expert who is not a YANG expert declined to review the YANG syntax, but that the normal-text portions of the document were acceptable.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
A-15. All Normative and Informative References are defined.  In addition, there are Normative references between the inter-related documents and data models described in section "1.1.  Relation to other RFCs" within the document itself. (See A-17 and A-18 below.)

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

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
A-17. This will logistically be challenging to implement, because this set of I-Ds and their data models are interconnected, and thus must be reviewed and posted to DOWNREF ~simultaneously.
Specifically:
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-trust-anchors]
     
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?
A-18. This is tied to A-17, as these files are a "locked set" and must go through the approval process ~simultaneously.
Specifically:
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore]
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-trust-anchors]

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.
A-19. No. This document and these data models are additive.  The data models in this document consume existing RFCs' data models as dependencies.

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).
A-20. This Document Shepard directly participated in the updating of the YANG model content specifically generated from the updated IANA registries.  Appendix A describes in some detail how the IANA registries are applied in YANG.

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.
A-21. The file "iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs@2022-06-16.yang" specifically names the 'TLS Cipher Suites' sub-registry of the 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters' registry maintained by IANA.  Updated data was specifically pulled from the IANA source page and edited into the data model file.