Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam and RFC 9546, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Russ Housley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3-RqWPjdoCCPFAZ0xgZEqAOdnws).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 13
```
-    layer is an MPLS network that provides Lqabel Switched Path (LSP)
-                                            -
```

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09`, but `-10` is the
latest available revision.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS, and the COMMENTs below.

(1) if you're going to mention hybrid approaches, it would be good to also say that this document only presents an active approach.

(3.1) 'The Level field is used to cope with the "all active path forwarding" characteristics'

It would be helpful to provide a section reference for this concept.

(3.1) More broadly, I found it somewhat surprising that there's no description of what the OAM receiver does with the various dACH fields defined here. I can guess at some of them.

(3.1) Is there not a test case where it would make sense to NOT increase the sequence number by 1, so as to force the POF or PEF to do something?

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Russ Housley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3-RqWPjdoCCPFAZ0xgZEqAOdnws).

## Discuss

### Section 3.1, paragraph 13
```
        Channel Type - is a 16-bit field, and the value of DetNet
        Associated Channel Type.  It MAY be one of the values defined in
        the IANA MPLS Generalized Associated Channel Types (including
        Pseudowire Associated Channel Types) registry [IANA-G-ACh-Types].
```
It "MAY", i.e., other values are allowed (and which are those), or
should this be a MUST?

### DOWNREFs

DOWNREF `[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]` from this Proposed Standard to
Informational `draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework`. (For IESG discussion. It seems
this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not appear in
the DOWNREF registry.)

[Ballot comment]
## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 13
```
-    layer is an MPLS network that provides Lqabel Switched Path (LSP)
-                                            -
```

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09`, but `-10` is the
latest available revision.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
I support Martin's Discuss.

Given I've written it, my comment is below, but have subsequently seen that this is the same issue that Martin raised in his Discuss ...

Minor level comments:

(1) p 6, sec 3.2.  DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
      Interaction with Active OAM

  At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF)
  MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially reduce
  packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and
  ensure in-order packet delivery.  PREOF relies on sequencing
  information in the DetNet service sub-layer.  For a DetNet active OAM
  packet, PREOF MUST use the bit string from bit 4 through bit 31
  inclusive of the first 32-bit word of the d-ACH, i.e., the
  concatenation of Version, Sequence Number, and Channel Type fields,
  as the source of this sequencing information.  In that, DetNet OAM
  uses a 28-bit field for sequencing and is conforming to Section 4.1
  of [RFC8964].

I'm slightly confused by this because the "Sequence Number" field (which is incremented by 1 for each packet) is in the middle of the 28 bit field used for sequencing in Section 4.1 or RFC 8964.  I.e., every time the "Sequence Number" field is incremented in the d-ACH header then the logical 28-bit field for sequencing is being incremented by 2^16.  I'm not sure if this isn't an issue, or I'm just confusing things, but thought that it would be helpful to flag it anyway ...

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 3.1

      Level - is a 3-bit field.  The Level field is used to cope with
      the "all active path forwarding" characteristics of the PREOF
      concept.  A hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be
      created using the Level field value.

How are level values constructed in an interoperable way?  How does one know where a value fits in a hierarchy?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Hilarie Orman for the SECDIR review.

I support the DISCUSS position of Martin Duke.

** Section 3.1. 
      Sequence Number - is an unsigned circular 8-bit field.  The
      sequence number space is circular with no restriction on the
      initial value. 

-- is an “unsigned circular … field” an unsigned integer that wraps around? 

-- how is wrap-around handled?

** Per the SECDIR review noting these OAM headers could enable tracking or fingerprinting, it would be valuable to make a statement to that effect in the Security Considerations.

[Ballot discuss]
Here are excerpts from two sections:

(3.1) Sequence Number - is an unsigned circular 8-bit field. The sequence number space is circular with no restriction on the initial value. The originator DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number field before the transmission of a packet. the initial value SHOULD be random (unpredictable). The originator node MUST increase the value of the Sequence Number field by 1 for each active OAM packet."

(3.2) "For a DetNet active OAM packet, PREOF MUST use the bit string from bit 4 through bit 31 inclusive of the first 32-bit word of the d-ACH, i.e., the concatenation of Version, Sequence Number, and Channel Type fields, as the source of this sequencing information. In that, DetNet OAM uses a 28-bit field for sequencing and is conforming to Section 4.1 of [RFC8964].

So if a POF is using a 28-bit integer for sequencing, but the OAM sender is incrementing bit 16 on every packet, doesn't that create huge gaps in the sequence space?

[Ballot comment]
(1) if you're going to mention hybrid approaches, it would be good to also say that this document only presents an active approach.

(3.1) 'The Level field is used to cope with the "all active path forwarding" characteristics'

It would be helpful to provide a section reference for this concept.

(3.1) More broadly, I found it somewhat surprising that there's no description of what the OAM receiver does with the various dACH fields defined here. I can guess at some of them.

(3.1) Is there not a test case where it would make sense to NOT increase the sequence number by 1, so as to force the POF or PEF to do something?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-14

Thank you for the work put into this document. As my knowledge of MPLS is rather low, please bear with me. I also found this document not so easy to read without the context (but this is OK).

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 János Farkas for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Section 3.1

I find weird to only have 4 bits for session IDs and a 5-bit flags field that has no flag defined yet. I.e., I fear that more than 16 OAM sessions may be useful.

Is the Node ID a well-known DetNet concept ?

## Section 3.2

Does this section mean that for transit DetNet node, the processing of an OAM packet is identical (to the bit level) as a normal data plane DetNet packet? This may be worth mentioning.

## Section 4.1

Should there be an informative reference to IEEE TSN?

## Section 4.2

Suggestion: give more explanations on the interworking with DetNet IP (in the same level of interworking with TSN in section 4.1).

## Section 6

This document specifies neither LSP ping nor BFD (they are cited as examples), so, is there a reason to have the last sentence in the security section about them?

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## DetNet or Detnet

The document uses both `DetNet` and `Detnet`, suggest to use only one.

I see that Greg has version 14 in preparation to address IETF Last Call comments. Greg, once you've published that version, I'll send this for full IESG approval.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

A new registry group is to be created called the DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags registry group.

The reference for the new registry page will be [ RFC-to-be ].

The new registry group will contain a single new registry called the DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags registry. The new registry will be managed via IETF Review as defined by RFC8126. The registry is made up of five flags (bits zero through four inclusive). None of the five flags will have initial registrations.

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action 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 2023-12-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam@ietf.org, janos.farkas@ericsson.com, jgs@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
  Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane'
  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 2023-12-19. 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 format and usage principles of the
  Deterministic Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over
  a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane.  The DetNet service ACH
  can be used to carry test packets of active Operations,
  Administration, and Maintenance protocols that are used to detect
  DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7799: Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc9055: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc9037: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) (Informational - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus
with nothing special worth mentioning.

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

Nothing notable.

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.

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)?

While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there
are no publicly known implementations yet. The document is one of the key
deliverables of the WG.


## 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.

This document relates to the work of the MPLS and PALS Working Groups. There is
a joint design team working related topics so all interested parties in those
Working Groups should already be familiar with this 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.

N/A, there is no such definition in the document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, the document does not contain 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.

N/A, no formal language in the document.


## 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?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No such issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status is Standards Track, which is reflected in datatracker. This
is the appropriate status because the document specifies OAM details for the
DetNet MPLS data plane.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/?gbt=1&index=C4KjfsbvWabNS1ErTG3PAyYUVtQ.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

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.)

No remaining I-D nits apart from the single downref explained in section 17.

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

No.

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 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.

I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework is a normative downward reference.
I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework is a normative reference because it is required
to properly understand and implement the document.

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?

I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document.
This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify DetNet
Associated Channel Header Flags bits, which are clearly defined.

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.

The registration procedure is "IETF Review".


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The normal WG process has been followed and the documents reflect WG consensus
with nothing special worth mentioning.

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

Nothing notable.

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.

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)?

While there is interest in this specification from multiple vendors, there
are no publicly known implementations yet. The document is one of the key
deliverables of the WG.


## 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.

This document relates to the work of the MPLS and PALS Working Groups. There is
a joint design team working related topics so all interested parties in those
Working Groups should already be familiar with this 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.

N/A, there is no such definition in the document.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A, the document does not contain 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.

N/A, no formal language in the document.


## 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?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

No such issues have been identified.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The intended status is Standards Track, which is reflected in datatracker. This
is the appropriate status because the document specifies OAM details for the
DetNet MPLS data plane.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/?gbt=1&index=C4KjfsbvWabNS1ErTG3PAyYUVtQ.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

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.)

No remaining I-D nits apart from the single downref explained in section 17.

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

No.

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 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.

I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework is a normative downward reference.
I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework is a normative reference because it is required
to properly understand and implement the document.

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?

I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework has been submitted to the IESG for publication.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations section is consistent with the body of the document.
This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify DetNet
Associated Channel Header Flags bits, which are clearly defined.

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.

The registration procedure is "IETF Review".


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/