A YANG Data Model for IP Traffic Flow Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-11

[Ballot comment]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08

CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document and for addressing my previous DISCUSS and COMMENT points (kept below for archiving only)

Special thanks to Tero Kivinen for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if there is no justification for the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## Previous DISCUSS kept for archiving

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section A.2 wrong prefix size ?

```
            2001:DB8::0/16
            2001:DB8::1:0/16
```

Beside the lack of RFC 5952 (see my comment below), is it on purpose that both prefix with a /16 are identical ? The authors probably mean a different prefix size rather than /16.
## Previous COMMENTS kept for archiving

### Useless BCP 14 template ?

As indicated by id-nits, the BCP 14 template is included but there is no normative 'upper case' language in the document.

### Section A.2

Please ensure to follow RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses, i.e., lowercase and maximum 0 compression.

## NITS

### Spelling of yang

s/yang/YANG/ at least in the abstract.

## 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.

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

[Ballot comment]
The first question of the shepherd writeup was not completely answered.

Do you need BCP 14 (Section 1.1) at all?  You don't seem to use it anywhere.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Chris, Don,

This YANG module and document looks good to me.

The one discuss issue that I wanted to check on the commented out when statements, e.g.,

        uses ipsec-tx-stat-grouping {
          //when "direction = 'outbound'";
        }

Are these when statement meant to just be descriptive?  If so, then writing them in plain English is probably better.  Or otherwise, can they just be removed from the module, or is there another plan?

[Ballot comment]
In the YANG module, for l2-fixed-rate and l3-fixed-rate, did you consider using yang:gauge64 instead of yang:counter64?  This would seem the more natural choice to me.

As a minor nit, adding YANG units statements for the counter definitions would probably be helpful, probably copying the usage of units in RFC 8343, e.g., using units "bits/second" instead of "bps", etc.

Thanks,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
# Paul Wouters, Security AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08
CC @paulwouters

## COMMENTS

### bytes vs octets

The document describes counters in packets and octets, however usually these counters are exposed as packets and bytes. It even presents this to the user as bytes:

      leaf tx-octets {
        type yang:counter64;
        config false;
        description
          "Outbound Packet bytes";
      }

Why not use "bytes" instead of "octets" everywhere? For example RFC 9061 has:

      leaf bytes {
        type uint64;
        default "0";
        description
          "If the IPsec SA processes the number of bytes
            expressed in this leaf, the IPsec SA expires and
            SHOULD be rekeyed.  The value 0 implies
            infinite.";
      }

It also does not use "octets"

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/HzETo-2ZxQTq94b5aj8EjHrFt70).

## Comments

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords ['SHOULD NOT', 'OPTIONAL', 'REQUIRED',
'SHOULD', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', 'SHALL NOT', 'MUST', 'MUST NOT',
'RECOMMENDED', 'SHALL'], but does not contain the recommended RFC8174
boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.)

## 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.

### Boilerplate

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

### URLs

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which is being deprecated:

* https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX
* https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2, paragraph 4
```
t the packet-size and timing independently from any receiver. Both direction
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independently of"?

## 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 discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-08
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (very easy to address ;-) ), some non-blocking COMMENT points (also very easy to fix), and some nits.

Special thanks to Tero Kivinen for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if there is no justification for the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section A.2 wrong prefix size ?

```
            2001:DB8::0/16
            2001:DB8::1:0/16
```

Beside the lack of RFC 5952 (see my comment below), is it on purpose that both prefix with a /16 are identical ? The authors probably mean a different prefix size rather than /16.

[Ballot comment]
## COMMENTS

### Useless BCP 14 template ?

As indicated by id-nits, the BCP 14 template is included but there is no normative 'upper case' language in the document.

### Section A.2

Please ensure to follow RFC 5952 to represent IPv6 addresses, i.e., lowercase and maximum 0 compression.

## NITS

### Spelling of yang

s/yang/YANG/ at least in the abstract.

## 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.

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

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

a new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

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

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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,

Michelle Thangtamsatid
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-08-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for IP Traffic Flow Security) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data
Model for IP Traffic Flow Security'
  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 2022-08-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a yang module for the management of IP
  Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs/



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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Roman Danyliw.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.


  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.


  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes a yang module for the management of IP Traffic Flow Security additions to IKEv2 and IPsec.

Working Group Summary:

  This document is the YANG model for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ .  This document has been presented and discussed on list.  No objections to this work have been raised.

Document Quality:

  The document is a straightforward YANG model definition, and is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Tero Kivinen.

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Benjamin Kaduk.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

  I have reviewed this document, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  None. It has gone through YANG doctor review and WG LC.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

  A yang doctor review was conducted, by Jürgen Schönwälder, and the points made in the review were addressed in the current revision.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.


  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  Reviewed by the interested WG members, no concerns were raised.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  One ID nit warning is present (has RFC 2119 boilerplate text, but do not use them). The document passes the YANG submission checks and validator.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  As discussed above, a YANG doctor review was performed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

  All required registrations are called out.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  IDnits, and YANG validation (on datatracker) were done.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

  Yes.