Network-Hexagons:Geolocation Mapping Network Based On H3 and LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-52

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Jordi Paillisse , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Jordi Paillisse , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Jordi Paillisse , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

My AD term is ending.  After consulting with the new responsible AD and the Shepherd, we decided to return this draft to the WG.  The Shepherd will work with the authors to address any remaining items before sending it back to the IESG.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Jordi Paillisse , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai , lisp-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir

draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(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?

  This document is targeting "Informational" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the document is about the usage of LISP in the automotive context. It does not introduce any modification to the LISP protocol. The RFC type is clearly indicated in the title page header.


(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 specifies the use of H3 and LISP for Geolocation
  Services. H3 is a geospatial indexing system using hexagonal grid that can be subdivided into finer and finer hexagonal grids, combining the benefits of a hexagonal grid with hierarchy. These standards are combined to create an in-network state reflecting condition of each hexagonal tile in every road. The mobility H3-LISP network maps and encapsulates traffic between client endpoint identifiers (EID) and addressable geospatial contexts.


Working Group Summary:

  This work was actually presented back in 2018 as an example of LISP use case, being the application actively developed. The WG got readily interested and basically push to document such use case. An individual  draft has been submitted in February 2019 and adopted by end of 2019, the adoption call has been issued confirmed on the mailing list after IETF 106. The authors asked WG Last Call during IETF 110 and consensus has been reached on the mailing list (LISP WG did not meet at IETF 106). The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -07. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications.
  During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document and rewrite the IANA considerations section according to RFC 8126.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Version -04 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Not Ready". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-nexagon-04-secdir-early-mandelberg-2020-10-08/ .
  Yet, the authors addressed all the comments (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/XuOG5EtWDd_mm91vYkDL4cnGIc4/)

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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 reviewed carefully the document. After my review the text is much more clear understandable. I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -19 version of the document is provided on point 11 (https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt).



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

  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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.

  No broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area reviews).



(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.

  I have no specific concerns, just a remark. In the packets' format that this protocol defines and uses, there are three bits that state whether or not the data content is compressed and how (see Figure 6 of the document). I suggested the main author to be more open and add a request to IANA to create a sub registry for the compression algorithm. This was deemed not necessary.



(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?

  All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document.



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

  No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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?

  There has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.


(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.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(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.

idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021)

/tmp/idnits31995/draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  No formal review is required.



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

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(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?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], which is in the RFC Editor queue.



(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.

  There are no downward normative references.



(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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document.



(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).

  The document has one IANA request, namely to create a registry named NEXAGON Parameters, and populate with the State Enumeration Fields sub-registries with value defined in the document.


(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 expert review for future allocations is required, a Fist Come First Served policy is suggested.



(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.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(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?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.

draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt Document Write-up

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

(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?

  This document is targeting "Informational" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the document is about the usage of LISP in the automotive context. It does not introduce any modification to the LISP protocol. The RFC type is clearly indicated in the title page header.


(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 specifies the use of H3 and LISP for Geolocation
  Services. H3 is a geospatial indexing system using hexagonal grid that can be subdivided into finer and finer hexagonal grids, combining the benefits of a hexagonal grid with hierarchy. These standards are combined to create an in-network state reflecting condition of each hexagonal tile in every road. The mobility H3-LISP network maps and encapsulates traffic between client endpoint identifiers (EID) and addressable geospatial contexts.


Working Group Summary:

  This work was actually presented back in 2018 as an example of LISP use case, being the application actively developed. The WG got readily interested and basically push to document such use case. An individual  draft has been submitted in February 2019 and adopted by end of 2019, the adoption call has been issued confirmed on the mailing list after IETF 106. The authors asked WG Last Call during IETF 110 and consensus has been reached on the mailing list (LISP WG did not meet at IETF 106). The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -07. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications.
  During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document and rewrite the IANA considerations section according to RFC 8126.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Version -04 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Not Ready". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-nexagon-04-secdir-early-mandelberg-2020-10-08/ .
  Yet, the authors addressed all the comments (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/XuOG5EtWDd_mm91vYkDL4cnGIc4/)

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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 reviewed carefully the document. After my review the text is much more clear understandable. I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -19 version of the document is provided on point 11 (https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt).



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

  As the document shepherd I have no concerns.



(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.

  No broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area reviews).



(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.

  I have no specific concerns, just a remark. In the packets' format that this protocol defines and uses, there are three bits that state whether or not the data content is compressed and how (see Figure 6 of the document). I suggested the main author to be more open and add a request to IANA to create a sub registry for the compression algorithm. This was deemed not necessary.



(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?

  All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document.



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

  No IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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?

  There has been clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it.


(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.)

  Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal.



(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.

idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021)

/tmp/idnits31995/draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  No formal review is required.



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

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(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?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], which is in the RFC Editor queue.



(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.

  There are no downward normative references.



(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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document.



(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).

  The document has one IANA request, namely to create a registry named NEXAGON Parameters, and populate with the State Enumeration Fields sub-registries with value defined in the document.


(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 expert review for future allocations is required, a Fist Come First Served policy is suggested.



(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.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(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?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai , lisp-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Fabio Maino , Rotem Tamir , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rotem Tamir , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Fabio Maino , Dino Farinacci , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Sharon Barkai , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "sbarkai@gmail.com"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "sbarkai@gmail.com" , Fabio Maino , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Dino Farinacci , Rotem Tamir , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Dino Farinacci , " sbarkai@gmail.com" , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Fabio Maino , Sharon Barkai , Rotem Tamir , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sharon Barkai , Dino Farinacci , Rotem Tamir , Fabio Maino , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , " sbarkai@gmail.com"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Fabio Maino , Sharon Barkai , " sbarkai@gmail.com" , Rotem Tamir , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Dino Farinacci , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rotem Tamir , Fabio Maino , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , " sbarkai@gmail.com" , Sharon Barkai , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Dino Farinacci