A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two 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/

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

As this document requests a registration 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/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, daniel@olddog.co.uk, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane
WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for
Optical Transport Network Topology'
  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 2024-03-01. 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 describes a YANG data model to describe the topologies
  of an Optical Transport Network (OTN).  It is independent of control
  plane protocols and captures topological and resource-related
  information pertaining to OTN.  This model enables clients, which
  interact with a transport domain controller, for OTN topology-related
  operations such as obtaining the relevant topology resource
  information.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model: OTN Tunnel YANG Model (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16).

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## 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 five authors, and 11 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-layer1-types-14. The English required cleaning up, this has been performed and readability suggestions have been provided to the authors.

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.

## 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.

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. During Last Call, there was a suggestion to improve the YANG tree descriptions. This continues to be an ongoing discussion between the authors and YANG expert, some key references needing updating to ensure their dates were accurate - the current status of this conversation https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CbXlOieebaefZVn2NnL_ppIVbeI/.

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 the Last Call process and several suggestions were made. The Authors have addressed most of the issues in the latest version (v16). An outstanding issue is the lack of URLs to publically available documents for several Normative, and one Informative, non-IETF references. These include: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709], [MEF63] and [ITU-T_G.Sup43].

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
DK>> 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-otn-topo-yang. The IPR declaration collection was successfully completed on 22 August, 2022.

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 no errors, 4 warnings and 2 comments. The
DK>> 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.

DK>> No.

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?

DK>> No.

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/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16).

**Current version 6 March 2023**

## 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 five authors, and 11 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-layer1-types-14. The English required cleaning up, this has been performed and readability suggestions have been provided to the authors.

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.

## 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.

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. During Last Call, there was a suggestion to improve the YANG tree descriptions. This continues to be an ongoing discussion between the authors and YANG expert, some key references needing updating to ensure their dates were accurate - the current status of this conversation https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CbXlOieebaefZVn2NnL_ppIVbeI/.

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 the Last Call process and several suggestions were made. The Authors have addressed most of the issues in the latest version (v16). An outstanding issue is the lack of URLs to publically available documents for several Normative, and one Informative, non-IETF references. These include: [ANSI_T1.105], [IEEE_754], IEEE_802.3], [ITU-T_G.7044], [ITU-T_G.709], [MEF63] and [ITU-T_G.Sup43].

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
DK>> 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-otn-topo-yang. The IPR declaration collection was successfully completed on 22 August, 2022.

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 no errors, 4 warnings and 2 comments. The
DK>> 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.

DK>> No.

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?

DK>> No.

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/

Please find the draft Shepherd write-up for A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport Network Topology (draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15). This is a draft version as I have provided a detailed review of the I-D and 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.


**Current version 12 September 2022**

## 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 five authors, and 11 contributors. This represents
DK>> 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-layer1-types-14. The English required cleaning up, this has been performed and readability suggestions have been provided to the authors.

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.
DK>> 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.
DK>> 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. During Last Call, there was a suggestion to improve the YANG tree descriptions. This continues to be an ongoing discussion between the authors and YANG expert, some key references needing updating to ensure their dates were accurate - the current status of this conversation https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/CbXlOieebaefZVn2NnL_ppIVbeI/.

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
DK>> 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
DK>> 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
DK>> 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-otn-topo-yang. The IPR declaration collection was successfully completed on 22 August, 2022.

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
DK>> 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 no errors, 4 warnings and 2 comments. The
DK>> 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/

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUenN9KgjTYt3Ts_FAyNnbAUR8o/

AUTHORS
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/IS3NBVmKGptwjxrWXuFr2h-IWKo/
Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/v6j59dLljygHaU62-6DRPhD0inw/
Xufeng Liu xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2rsYn8xBH1pijEFZW7k9Hjszd1g/
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/9qHBlAmDtkkR95EEt8WKg_lvXu4/
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/xs-Pm8TOTSkfP_vfe1_VKosPoZo/
Aihua Guo aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/p8cfXrqCAcLStDxUWUvxLeCpvq4/
Anurag Sharma ansha@google.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/JyPSZGz_k_mLdp3v6dnNM0SVikY/
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/djMK3zSDoA2s468cr_J7FZtJ3v4/
Lei Wang wangleiyj@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2SpCuWZpMh5L6PyaAMBINGWAXqg/
Baoquan Rao raobaoquan@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/_PKdP1AVamfFGCGGK37Qlul9KOs/
Xian Zhang zhang.xian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Cve2UmxSBEx9TPMz3CuZL3jyCss/
Huub van Helvoort huubatwork@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Hm82fqiX_1cxrnhESDKhfO0JLUo/
Victor Lopez victor.lopez@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/D55FYYMORXHUo4yS-T84Qyipr6s/
Yunbo Li liyunbo@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2nVecppE3aBMZx8oVxr3DOaejgQ/
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Jp0YPOxrgWNfIL_YiFm77O9b2Po/
Yanlei Zheng zhengyanlei@chinaunicom.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/kzCnWA0ZEPfAYyp_ZcgYSI8G2fg/

Last Call IPR uodate

IPR poll (Daniele) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FUenN9KgjTYt3Ts_FAyNnbAUR8o/

AUTHORS
Haomian Zheng zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/IS3NBVmKGptwjxrWXuFr2h-IWKo/
Italo Busi Italo.Busi@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/v6j59dLljygHaU62-6DRPhD0inw/
Xufeng Liu xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/2rsYn8xBH1pijEFZW7k9Hjszd1g/
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/9qHBlAmDtkkR95EEt8WKg_lvXu4/
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Aihua Guo aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/p8cfXrqCAcLStDxUWUvxLeCpvq4/
Anurag Sharma ansha@google.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/JyPSZGz_k_mLdp3v6dnNM0SVikY/
Yunbin Xu xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/djMK3zSDoA2s468cr_J7FZtJ3v4/
Lei Wang wangleiyj@chinamobile.com
Baoquan Rao raobaoquan@huawei.com
Xian Zhang zhang.xian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Cve2UmxSBEx9TPMz3CuZL3jyCss/
Huub van Helvoort huubatwork@gmail.com
Victor Lopez victor.lopez@nokia.com
Yunbo Li liyunbo@chinamobile.com
Dieter Beller dieter.beller@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Jp0YPOxrgWNfIL_YiFm77O9b2Po/
Yanlei Zheng zhengyanlei@chinaunicom.cn

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Xufeng Liu , Haomian Zheng , Yunbin Xu , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma , Aihua Guo

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Xufeng Liu , Haomian Zheng , Yunbin Xu , Aihua Guo , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Xufeng Liu , Haomian Zheng , Yunbin Xu , Aihua Guo , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Haomian Zheng , Yunbin Xu , Aihua Guo , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Xufeng Liu , Yunbin Xu , Aihua Guo , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Xufeng Liu , Yunbin Xu , Aihua Guo , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" , Italo Busi , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheyu Fan , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, Xufeng Liu , Yunbin Xu , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" , Anurag Sharma

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zheyu Fan , Xufeng Liu , Yunbin Xu , Oscar de Dios , Lei Wang , Sergio Belotti , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" , Anurag Sharma