A YANG Data Model for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Integrity-Protected Options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-08

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Corey Bonnell for their secdir review.

Section 5, para 2:  I recommend using draft-ietf-tls-8446bis vice RFC 8446.  The draft is in Auth 48.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. I can only repeat my comment on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity, i.e., with the use of shared keys by trusted nodes, this smells more like authentication (e.g., see OSPFv3 *authentication* trailer) than integrity. I.e., STRONGLY suggest to s/int/auth/ in the module.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4, paragraph 21
>      grouping int-method-grouping {
>        description
>          "A grouping for Integrity Protection Methods.";
>        leaf int-method {
>          when "derived-from-or-self(../node-action,
>                'ioam:action-encapsulate')";
>          type iana-ioam-ipm:method-id;
>          description
>            "This object indicates the Integrity Protection Method for
>            this profile. 'int-method' is only defined at the
>            encapsulating node.";
>        }
>      }

The int-method leaf is defined as optional (? in the tree diagram) in all
four integrity-protected profiles, with no default and no mandatory
statement. The description says it "indicates the Integrity Protection
Method for this profile" and is "only defined at the encapsulating node."

If the int-method is absent at an encapsulating node, what method does the
implementation use? Currently, there is only one registered method
(AES-GMAC, method-0), so implementations may default to it in practice.
But as the registry grows, an absent int-method will become ambiguous.

The document should either: (a) add a mandatory true statement
(since an integrity-protected profile without a method is semantically
incomplete at the encapsulating node), or (b) define explicit
default/fallback behavior when int-method is absent. This is important
for interoperability as the registry expands.

Section 6.1, paragraph 6
>    IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo-
>    registry]:
>
>    |  When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-ioam-
>    |  integrity-protection-methods" [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as
>    |  defined in RFC XXXX.

This section contains two unresolved template placeholders that were
flagged by the INTDIR reviewer (Satoru Matsushima, thanks Saturo-san)
against -06 and are still present in -07:

Line referencing [reference-to-the-iana-foo-registry] and the note
itself references [IANA_FOO_URL].

These must be replaced with the actual "IOAM Integrity Protection Methods."
registry reference and the IANA YANG module URL before publication.

Appendix A similarly has inline // RFC Ed.: replace the IANA_FOO_URL notes
that need resolution. The shepherd write-up acknowledged this as an
outstanding issue, but it was not addressed in -07.

Section 7, paragraph 0
>    The authors would like to thank Alex Huang Feng, Will Hawkins, and
>    Mohamed Boucadair for their valuable feedback.

How about the expert reviewers who provided their review?

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
[reference-to-the-iana-foo-registry] and [IANA_FOO_URL].

Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [IANA-IOAM]. If so, the IESG
needs to approve it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Section 1, paragraph 1
>    This document defines a data model for the management of these
>    Integrity-Protected Options using the YANG data modeling language
>    [RFC7950].  This YANG data model supports four IOAM Integrity-
>    Protected Options, which are as follows:

The YANG Doctor reviewer (Qiufang Ma, thanks Qiufang) against the -06 version
of the document suggested restructuring to "This document defines a
YANG data model [RFC7950] for the management of these
Integrity-Protected Options." The current text partially addresses
the suggestion, but still has "data model...using the YANG data
modeling language, which is slightly awkward. Consider the suggested form.

Section 4, paragraph 21
> m:ioam-pot-type; description "The type of a particular POT variant that specifies
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
If "type" is a classification term, "a" is not necessary. Use "type of". (The
phrases "kind of" and "sort of" are informal if they mean "to some extent".)

"Appendix B.", paragraph 3
> otected Proof of Transit and Integrity- Protected Edge-to-Edge Profiles Autho
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or
removing the hyphen completely.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent upon the approval of and completion of IANA Actions in another document:

[draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity]

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

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

ID: yang:iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? Y
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods
Prefix: iana-ioam-ipm
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

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

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

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

a note will be added to the registration for:

iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods

as follows:

New values must not be directly added to the "iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods" YANG module. They must instead be added to the "IOAM Integrity Protection Methods" registry.

Fourth, in the IOAM Integrity Protection Methods registry created by the approval of:

[draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-integrity]

a note will be added will be added to the registry as follows:

When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-ioam-integrity-protection-methods" in https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/ must be updated as defined in [ 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

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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-04-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Integrity Protected Options) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for In Situ
Operations, Administration, and
  Maintenance (IOAM) Integrity Protected Options'
  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 2026-04-23. 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


  In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is an
  example of an on-path hybrid measurement method to collect
  operational and telemetry information.  The collected data may then
  be exported to systems that will use it to, e.g., monitor, measure,
  or (re)configure the network.  Integrity Protection of In Situ
  Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Data Fields (RFC
  YYYY) defines IOAM Options with integrity protection, also called
  Integrity Protected Options.  This document defines a YANG module for
  the management of these Integrity Protected Options.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-integrity-yang/



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

# 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?

This is a companion document to the integrity YANG document, it has been non-controversial
throughout the process. The consensus represents strong concurrence of individuals
with strong interest in IOAM.

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

No.

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)?
pending check

## 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 is deep in IPPM/OPS territory.

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.

YANG doctor review has been performed on version 04, the oustanding points were
addressed in 05.

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]?

YANG Validator does not indicate any problems.

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, it is the final component in making the set of IOAM base-specifications complete.

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?

Appropriate YANG reviews and validation has taken place.

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?

Standards track. Appropriate, Yang Model accompanying the main specification
of IOAM Integrity.

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, no undisclosed IPRs have been indicated.

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.

Explicit check pending, but as recent as during the last call they specified
clear willingness in progressing document.

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.)

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?
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?

No.

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

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]).

Referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.
Section 6.1 contains text that needs to be updated with proper registry names:
"
  IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo-
  registry]:

  |  When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-ioam-
  |  integrity-protection-methods" [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as
  |  defined in RFC XXXX."
"
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

*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?

This is a companion document to the integrity YANG document, it has been non-controversial
throughout the process. The consensus represents strong concurrence of individuals
with strong interest in IOAM.

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

No.

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)?
pending check

## 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 is deep in IPPM/OPS territory.

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.

YANG doctor review has been performed on version 04, the oustanding points were
addressed in 05.

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]?

YANG Validator does not indicate any problems.

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, it is the final component in making the set of IOAM base-specifications complete.

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?

Appropriate YANG reviews and validation has taken place.

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?

Standards track. Appropriate, Yang Model accompanying the main specification
of IOAM Integrity.

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, no undisclosed IPRs have been indicated.

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.

Explicit check pending, but as recent as during the last call they specified
clear willingness in progressing document.

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.)

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?
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?

No.

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

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]).

Referenced IANA registries are clearly identified.
Section 6.1 contains text that needs to be updated with proper registry names:
"
  IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo-
  registry]:

  |  When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-ioam-
  |  integrity-protection-methods" [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as
  |  defined in RFC XXXX."
"
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/