IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures
draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-15

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-15, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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 2024-04-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, furry13@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
Procedures'
  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 2024-04-29. 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 specifies procedures for how IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options
  are processed in IPv6 routers and hosts.  It modifies the procedures
  specified in the IPv6 Protocol Specification (RFC8200) to make
  processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the
  goal of making IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use in
  the Internet.  When published, this document updates RFC8200.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5554/

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-14
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/

## Discuss

### S5.1

* I'm having a hard time understanding how:

  - this section has normative language about process EHs,
  - this section says draft-eh-limits contains further requirements
  - draft-eh-limits is presently NOT a normative dependency

  I know we might not want to tie this document to draft-eh-limits, but in
  order to make that argument I kinda feel like it'll be necessary to
  clarify the difference.

  Given a quick scan of draft-eh-limits, which is listed as a BCP, I think
  it suffices to change "further requirements" to something like
  "additional recommendations"? I think that might underscore that
  draft-eh-limits is all SHOULD (and we probably need to clarify that the
  MUSTs in draft-eh-limits apply to nodes complying with the BCP).

  Thoughts?

### S6

* I don't know what it would mean to a specification author that a "[n]ew
  Hop-by-Hop [option] SHOULD be designed expecting that a router may drop
  packets containing the new Hop-by-Hop option".

  I think it's the intend *use* of the option that should be designed to
  understand it may be dropped, rather than the option itself?

## Comments

### S5.2

* "which can be mitigated when using a reverse path forwarding (RPF) check"

  My gut reaction is that this might be more specifically written as "which
  can be mitigated to varying degrees by using a reverse path forwarding
  (RPF) check."

  This is because it depends upon where along the path the first the uRPF
  check is done.  A spoofing source might be able to DoS a ~neighbor within
  the "zone of uRPF" (blast radius) from the triggered router's perspective.

## Nits

### S4

* "many types network path" -> "many types of network paths"

* "into the the processor" -> "into the processor"

* "could cause adversely impact router operation"
  "could adversely impact router operation" or
  "could cause adverse impact router operation"

## 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?

The draft has been discussed extensively and received thoughtful reviews from many working
group participants (Acknowledgments section includes a long list of names).

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

Nothing out of ordinary.


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 threats of appeals or extreme discontent have been expressed.

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)?

There are no yet confirmed implementations of the proposed changes to RFC8200 described in this document.
However as the document defines guidelines for implementors, not a new protocol, it might be too early to expect implementations.
The document also provides recommendations on defining new Hop-by-hop options and
Section 6.1 reports that at least one recently defined option
(RFC9268) complies with those recommendations.

## 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.

The document defines rules for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options, and doesn't really have any
content in scope of other IETF WGs or external organisations.


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.

This document does not require any formal expert reviews.


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]?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

## 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 shepherd believes that the document is very much needed. The extension headers,
especially Hop-by-Hop one and its processing by routers is a topic being constantly discussed at IETF.
This document brings the idustry one step closer towards making Extension Headers useful and deployable.
The document's goal is to specify realistic and deployable processing rules for Hop-by-Hop Options header.
In the shepherd's opinion, the document is clearly written, complete and correctly designed.
After two WGLCs and extensive reviews, the document is ready for the responsible Area Director's review.


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?

The shepherd reviewed the lists provided in [6] and didn't identified any issues with this document.


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 of the document is Standards Track. This is a proper status as it updates RFC8200 which is Internet 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.

The authors are not aware of any IPR claims except for one already filled for the draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5554/).

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.

The draft has two authors and, as of Feb 2024, both of them are still willing to be listed as such.

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.)

There are informational references to obsolete documents (RFC1883 and RFC2460) but this is intentional,
as those references are used to explain the history of IPv6 extension headers processing rules.

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

The document contains 4 normative references and all of them shall be read to understand or implement
the proposed changes (one might argue that the reference to the IANA registry for all existing Hop-by-Hop options might be considered an Informative,
but the content of that registry is required to implement, for example, Section 5.2.2 of the document.

In the shepherd's opinion, no informative references need to be normative instead.

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

All normative references are freely available to anyone.

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.

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?

No such references.

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.

This document updated RFC8200. That fact is correctly reflected in the document metadata.

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 doesn't define any actions for IANA.

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.

No future allocations are 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://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/

## 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?

The draft has been discussed extensively and received thoughtful reviews from many working
group participants (Acknowledgments section includes a long list of names).

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

Nothing out of ordinary.


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 threats of appeals or extreme discontent have been expressed.

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)?

There are no yet confirmed implementations of the proposed changes to RFC8200 described in this document.
However as the document defines guidelines for implementors, not a new protocol, it might be too early to expect implementations.
The document also provides recommendations on defining new Hop-by-hop options and
Section 6.1 reports that at least one recently defined option
(RFC9268) complies with those recommendations.

## 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.

The document defines rules for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options, and doesn't really have any
content in scope of other IETF WGs or external organisations.


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.

This document does not require any formal expert reviews.


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]?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

## 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 shepherd believes that the document is very much needed. The extension headers,
especially Hop-by-Hop one and its processing by routers is a topic being constantly discussed at IETF.
This document brings the idustry one step closer towards making Extension Headers useful and deployable.
The document's goal is to specify realistic and deployable processing rules for Hop-by-Hop Options header.
In the shepherd's opinion, the document is clearly written, complete and correctly designed.
After two WGLCs and extensive reviews, the document is ready for the responsible Area Director's review.


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?

The shepherd reviewed the lists provided in [6] and didn't identified any issues with this document.


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 of the document is Standards Track. This is a proper status as it updates RFC8200 which is Internet 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.

The authors are not aware of any IPR claims except for one already filled for the draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5554/).

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.

The draft has two authors and, as of Feb 2024, both of them are still willing to be listed as such.

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.)

There are informational references to obsolete documents (RFC1883 and RFC2460) but this is intentional,
as those references are used to explain the history of IPv6 extension headers processing rules.

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

The document contains 4 normative references and all of them shall be read to understand or implement
the proposed changes (one might argue that the reference to the IANA registry for all existing Hop-by-Hop options might be considered an Informative,
but the content of that registry is required to implement, for example, Section 5.2.2 of the document.

In the shepherd's opinion, no informative references need to be normative instead.

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

All normative references are freely available to anyone.

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.

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?

No such references.

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.

This document updated RFC8200. That fact is correctly reflected in the document metadata.

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 doesn't define any actions for IANA.

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.

No future allocations are 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://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/

## 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?

The draft has been discussed extensively and received thoughtful reviews from many working
group participants (Acknowledgments section includes a long list of names).

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

Nothing out of ordinary.


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 threats of appeals or extreme discontent have been expressed.

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)?

There are no yet confirmed implementations of the proposed changes to RFC8200 described in this document.
However as the document defines guidelines for implementors, not a new protocol, it might be too early to expect implementations.
The document also provides recommendations on defining new Hop-by-hop options and
Section 6.1 reports that at least one recently defined option
(RFC9268) complies with those recommendations.

## 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.

The document defines rules for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options, and doesn't really have any
content in scope of other IETF WGs or external organisations.


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.

This document does not require any formal expert reviews.


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]?

This document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

## 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 shepherd believes that the document is very much needed. The extension headers,
especially Hop-by-Hop one and its processing by routers is a topic being constantly discussed at IETF.
This document brings the idustry one step closer towards making Extension Headers useful and deployable.
The document's goal is to specify realistic and deployable processing rules for Hop-by-Hop Options header.
In the shepherd's opinion, the document is clearly written, complete and correctly designed.
After two WGLCs and extensive reviews, the document is ready for the responsible Area Director's review.


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?

The shepherd reviewed the lists provided in [6] and didn't identified any issues with this document.


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 of the document is Standards Track. This is a proper status as it updates RFC8200 which is Internet 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.

TBD

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.

TBD

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.)

There are informational references to obsolete documents (RFC1883 and RFC2460) but this is intentional,
as those references are used to explain the history of IPv6 extension headers processing rules.

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

The document contains 4 normative references and all of them shall be read to understand or implement
the proposed changes (one might argue that the reference to the IANA registry for all existing Hop-by-Hop options might be considered an Informative,
but the content of that registry is required to implement, for example, Section 5.2.2 of the document.

In the shepherd's opinion, no informative references need to be normative instead.

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

All normative references are freely available to anyone.

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.

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?

No such references.

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.

This document updated RFC8200. That fact is correctly reflected in the document metadata.

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 doesn't define any actions for IANA.

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.

No future allocations are 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://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/