Compact Denial of Existence in DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-07

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence and RFC 9824, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for dealing with my DISCUSS position.

== [original comments for posterity] ==

Why the "SHOULD" in Section 3.1?  What is the impact if I don't do that?  Why might I legitimately choose not to do that?  "SHOULD" implies there are answers to these questions.

Some nits:

* Section 1 varies between single and double quotes; is this intentional?

* In Section 3.1, s/immedidate/immediate/

* Not at all necessary, but I suggest breaking Section 10 into a subsection for each action.

[Ballot discuss]
Kudos to Andy Newton (incoming ART AD) for spotting these issues that need either discussion or correction:

(1) This document uses BCP 14 keywords without citing BCP 14.  It also uses some BCP 14 keywords ("recommended") in all-lowercase form, which might be worthy of review.

(2) Section 3.1 Paragraph 2:

  The Next Domain Name field SHOULD be set to the immediate lexicographic successor of the QNAME.
  The Type Bit Maps field MUST only have the bits set for the following RR Types: RRSIG, NSEC, and
  NXNAME. (The immediate lexicographic successor is the typical case of the "DNS Name Successor"
  defined in [RFC4471]).

The reference to RFC4471 is informative, but this makes it look like it should be normative.  But that would make it a downward reference, since this is seeking Proposed Standard status.  How does the WG want to handle this?

[Ballot comment]
Why the "SHOULD" in Section 3.1?  What is the impact if I don't do that?  Why might I legitimately choose not to do that?  "SHOULD" implies there are answers to these questions.

Some nits:

* Section 1 varies between single and double quotes; is this intentional?

* In Section 3.1, s/immedidate/immediate/

* Not at all necessary, but I suggest breaking Section 10 into a subsection for each action.

[Ballot comment]
Just a few comments:

        Since NODATA responses are generated for non-existent names

Should this not also say "not covered by a wildcard" ? I guess it depends on whether you consider "non-existent names" to mean "not covered by a wildcard". I think it wouldn't hurt to make this explicit in the text.


        proves the delegation is unsigned by the absense of the DS bit.

The absence is of the DS RRtype, signified by a bit in the Type Bitmaps field. This brings the writing more in line with earlier mentions of the Type Bitmaps content. (also absense -> absence ?)


Last, the Appendix A and B look very similar to what we normally call Implementation Status (RFC 7942). Those sections are usually removed from the document before publication (to avoid them being used sort of as advertisement, and for quickly becoming outdated). I'm a bit on the fence here on whether it would align more with RFC 7942 to remove these from the final document.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Elwyn Davies for the GENART review.

** Section 10.  Be more precise with the registry names (i.e., using their actual names)

OLD
  Allocate a new DNS Resource Record type code for NXNAME in the DNS
  parameters registry, from the meta type range.
NEW
Allocate a new DNS Resource Record type code for NXNAME from the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" registry in the "DNS parameters" registry group, from the meta type range.

OLD
  Allocate the "Compact Answers OK" flag in the EDNS header, as
  described in Section 5.1.

NEW
Allocate the "Compact Answers OK" flag in the "EDNS Header Flags (16 bits) registry in the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group.  Set the Flag field to "CO".

OLD
  Allocate a code point for the "Invalid Query Type" Extended DNS Error
  in the DNS parameters registry, as described in Section 3.5.
NEW
Allocate a code point for the "Invalid Query Type" in the "Extended DNS Error Codes" registry in the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group, as described in Section 3.5.

[Ballot comment]

** Section 10.  Be more precise with the registry names (i.e., using their actual names)

OLD
  Allocate a new DNS Resource Record type code for NXNAME in the DNS
  parameters registry, from the meta type range.
NEW
Allocate a new DNS Resource Record type code for NXNAME from the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" registry in the "DNS parameters" registry group, from the meta type range.

OLD
  Allocate the "Compact Answers OK" flag in the EDNS header, as
  described in Section 5.1.

NEW
Allocate the "Compact Answers OK" flag in the "EDNS Header Flags (16 bits) registry in the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group.  Set the Flag field to "CO".

OLD
  Allocate a code point for the "Invalid Query Type" Extended DNS Error
  in the DNS parameters registry, as described in Section 3.5.
NEW
Allocate a code point for the "Invalid Query Type" in the "Extended DNS Error Codes" registry in the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group, as described in Section 3.5.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

Special thanks to Suzanne Woolf for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), and I have read Shumon's reply:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2025-02-10/

Other thanks to Patrick Mevzek , the DNS directorate reviewer, and I have read Shumon's reply:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06-dnsdir-telechat-mevzek-2025-02-02/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 3.5

Please expand `EDE` at first use.

### Section 4

Should there be a normative reference to base32 ?

### Section 5.1

A nice and smart trick ;-)

### Section 6

This section is about the drawback of the proposed system... While the section is clear and the technique appears to work fine in real life, I cannot refrain from wondering what will happen when DNSSEC is more widespread and with HAPPY WG probably requesting first SVCB, then AAAA, and finally A (i.e., 3 RR in a row).

### Section 8

Section 1 includes  `The use of minimally covering NSEC or NSEC3 records also prevents adversaries from enumerating the entire contents of DNS zones by walking the NSEC chain,`, this is really important in IPv6 world as enumerating DNS is faster than enumerating a /64. I.e., suggest adding this positive consideration in the security section.

### Appendix B

While this appendix helps the reader to assert the feasibility, it lacks references, i.e., how can the authors/WG/IETF assert this statement?

[Ballot discuss]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06

# The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06.txt

# In this review you find a simple to resolve DISCUSS and a general review with non-blocking COMMENTs

# DISCUSS
# =======

# The Requirement's Language (BCP14) sections seems missing? I am sure this is an accidental oversight. BCP14 text looks as follows:

"
1.1.  Requirements Language

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
  14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
  capitals, as shown here.
"

[Ballot comment]
# General Review
# ==============

## idnits point to a downref RFC 7129 (ISE stream) that is not in the downref register. It was mentioned during LC.

# I am rarely working with DNS technology and hence i tend to get lost easily in related acronyms. Would a terminology/reference section make sense for these (NSEC, NSEC3, Empty Non-Terminal names, RRSIGs, etc)?


Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde
Routing Area Director

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Warren for the 'Cliff Notes' (they will be missed), and to Brian Weis for the early secdir review.

Section 1, para 1:  I did some RFC chasing.  RFC4470 has no occurrences of 'white lies'.  RFC7129 does, but it is listed as "NSEC3 White Lies".  I'm guessing there is at least a typo here. I'm not knowledgeable about this to understand (how entrenched the language is), but I suspect the use of 'white' here is unfortunate.  [the use of epsilon later in the sentence implies that 'small' might be a good substitute.]

Section 8, para 4:  Is there a reference for the 'so-called Water Torture attacks'?  As a native English speaker, I know what that means, but it isn't clear to me that others will understand.

Section 8, in general: No change required: I do think that this section covers the security concerns - exposure of private signing keys, denial of service (both due to computation requirements and due to multiple queries), transition issues, and preventing adversaries from DNS mapping (although this is in the Intro).

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registry in the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry group located at:

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

the early registration for:

TYPE: NXNAME
Value: 128
Meaning: NXDOMAIN indicator for Compact Denial of Existence

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the EDNS Header Flags (16 bits) registry also in the the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry group located at:

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

a single new header flag will be registered as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Flag: CO
Description: Compact Answers OK (CO)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the Extended DNS Error Codes registry also in the the Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters registry group located at:

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

the early registration for:

INFO-CODE: 30
Purpose: Invalid Query Type

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

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 2024-12-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence@ietf.org, suzworldwide@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Compact Denial of Existence in DNSSEC) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Compact Denial of Existence in
DNSSEC'
  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 2024-12-23. 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 technique to generate a signed DNS response
  on demand for a non-existent name by claiming that the name exists
  but doesn't have any data for the queried record type.  Such answers
  require only one minimal NSEC record, allow online signing servers to
  minimize signing operations and response sizes, and prevent zone
  content disclosure.

  This document updates RFC 4034 and 4035.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6089/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6090/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc7129: Authenticated Denial of Existence in the DNS (Informational - Independent Submission stream)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents


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?

This draft has broad support in the WG. It optimizes for a specific but common situation in the use of DNSSEC, and has clearly defined benefits (reduced answer sizes and reduced cryptographic overhead).

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

The major concern people have had about this document is that it offers yet another tweak to DNS; but this one is acceptable because it’s based on clear specification, is already in production use in the DNS, and shows clear benefits.

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)?

Yes. There is an implementation section that discusses current or planned use of this technology by several large-scale DNS providers.

## 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.

Not specifically applicable.

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

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

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

## 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?

This document does not have any of the issues that typically come up in DNSOP or OPS drafts, and the WG is pretty good at picking up on places where a draft is overly complex or makes inappropriate assumptions.

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?

Requested status is Proposed Standard, which is needed because it updates DNSSEC base documents (4034 and 4035).

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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=&submit=draft shows 2 disclosures, both from Cloudflare, which include licensing terms and appear to comply with RFC 8179.

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.)

There are a few warnings regarding line width and size of artwork, which appear to be spurious. The content complies with the guidelines at https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview.

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

References appear to be appropriate.

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

N/A

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.

N/A

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?

N/A

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 draft updates RFC 4034 and 4035, and says so in the header and the abstract. Section 6 specifies the updates in detail.

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]).

IANA Considerations is complete and two of the 3 parameters specified have already been allocated by IANA. No new registries are established.

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.

N/A

[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 Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents


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?

This draft has broad support in the WG. It optimizes for a specific but common situation in the use of DNSSEC, and has clearly defined benefits (reduced answer sizes and reduced cryptographic overhead).

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

The major concern people have had about this document is that it offers yet another tweak to DNS; but this one is acceptable because it’s based on clear specification, is already in production use in the DNS, and shows clear benefits.

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)?

Yes. There is an implementation section that discusses current or planned use of this technology by several large-scale DNS providers.

## 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.

Not specifically applicable.

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

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

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

## 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?

This document does not have any of the issues that typically come up in DNSOP or OPS drafts, and the WG is pretty good at picking up on places where a draft is overly complex or makes inappropriate assumptions.

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?

Requested status is Proposed Standard, which is needed because it updates DNSSEC base documents (4034 and 4035).

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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=&submit=draft shows 2 disclosures, both from Cloudflare, which include licensing terms and appear to comply with RFC 8179.

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.)

There are a few warnings regarding line width and size of artwork, which appear to be spurious. The content complies with the guidelines at https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview.

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

References appear to be appropriate.

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

N/A

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.

N/A

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?

N/A

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 draft updates RFC 4034 and 4035, and says so in the header and the abstract. Section 6 specifies the updates in detail.

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]).

IANA Considerations is complete and two of the 3 parameters specified have already been allocated by IANA. No new registries are established.

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.

N/A

[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/