IS-IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-07

[Ballot comment]
I support Alvaro's DISCUSS, and add my own comments related to his first point:

The first two SHOULDs in Section 3.1 would benefit from some guidance about when an implementer might opt to deviate from that advice.  This occurs again Sections 3.3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, the top of Section 4 (two SHOULDs) and the bottom of Section 4 (two SHOULD NOTs).

Given Section 6.3, I think RFC7981 should be a normative reference rather than an informative one.

I think RFC4271 also needs to be normative since it's referenced by a SHOULD.

[Ballot comment]
I support Alvaro Retana's DISCUSS position.

Could the example HMAC use in the Security Considerations section be updated from HMAC-MD5 to something more modern (eg HMAC-SHA2) or is there a valid operational reason to stick with HMAC-MD5 ?

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
      0                  1                  2                  3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Router ID                                    (4 octets)    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  default metric                              | (3 octets)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Flags    |                                (1 octet)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |sub-TLVs length|                                (1 octet)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
    | sub-TLVs ...                                    (0-246 octets)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
```
It's somewhat unusual to have a header diagram that doesn't fill its
rows and uses that space to instead define the field length for a
second time (it's already defined by the horizontal space used,
which is why there is bit count at the top.)

### Section 3.3.1, paragraph 4
```
    The remote AS number field has 4 octets.  When only 2 octets are used
    for the AS number, the left (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0.
    The remote AS number sub-TLV MUST be included when a router
    advertises an inter-AS TE link.
```
Would the higher-order octets not be zero anyway if the value is <= 0xffff?

### Section 3.3.4, paragraph 4
```
    If the originating node does not support IPv4, the IPv6 Local ASBR ID
    sub-TLV MUST be present in the inter-AS reachability TLV.  Inter-AS
    reachability TLVs which have a Router ID of 0.0.0.0 and do NOT have
    the IPv6 Local ASBR ID sub-TLV present MUST be ignored.
```
NOT is not an RFC2119 term.

## 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.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 5, paragraph 5
```
this document. No additional acknowledgments are made for the new version (
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("acknowledgment" and "acknowledgement")
within a single text.

## Notes

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

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

[Ballot comment]
I support Alvaro's discuss.

I would like to thank Menachem for the OPSDIR review.

I also have a few minor nits for the authors to consider:

(1) p 3, sec 2.  Problem Statement

  Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
  discussed.

It was unclear what is meant by this, please clarify.  I.e., Do you mean described in this document?  Or there is ongonig discussion in the WG?  Or ...


(2) p 5, sec 2.2.  Per-Domain Path Determination

  Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3.  The next hop in
  the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
  reach AS3.  It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7,
  and R8), and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity
  to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
  bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
  Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
  (say R9),

Should this be "an entry ASBR" rather than "the entry ASBR"?


(3) p 7, sec 3.  Extensions to ISIS-TE

    Also, two other new sub-TLVs are defined for
  inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router
  ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
  entire IS-IS routing domain.

As a nit, I would put the last sentence above into its own paragraph.  "This document also defines two other new sub-TLVs ..."


(4) p 8, sec 3.1.  Inter-AS Reachability TLV

  Rsvd bits MUST be zero when originated and ignored
  when received.

Perhaps "Reserved (Rsvd) bits MUST be zero ..."

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document especially about `This document builds on RFC 5316 by adding support for IPv6-only operation.`

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

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

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 3.1

```
  The Router ID field of the inter-AS reachability TLV is 4 octets in
  length, which contains the IPv4 Router ID of the router who generates
  the inter-AS reachability TLV.  The Router ID SHOULD be identical to
  the value advertised in the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV
  [RFC5305].  If no Traffic Engineering Router ID is assigned, the
  Router ID SHOULD be identical to an IP Interface Address [RFC1195]
  advertised by the originating IS.
```

AFAIK, the router ID is 'just' a 32-bit value that it is protocol version agnostic. So, s/IPv4 Router ID/Router ID/ ?

Suggest: s/IP Interface Address [RFC1195]/IPv4 Interface Address [RFC1195]/ ?

### Section 6.1 & 6.2

`This document defines the following new IS-IS TLV type` but this type is already defined in RFC 5316, so does it still qualify as "new" ? Propose to rewrite the IANA section to simply request IANA to update the registries to point to this I-D rather than to RFC 5316.

### Section 7

While Les was not an author of RFC 5316, he is an author of this I-D, so no more need to acknowledge him ;-)

## 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 discuss]
I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe the specification is not clear enough.

(1) The document recommends (5 separate times) that an ID "SHOULD be identical to the value advertised" in an existing TLV.

If the other TLV is advertised, when is it ok for the values not to be the same?  Why is this action recommended and not required?

Should the receiver of these TLVs take any action if the values are not identical?


(2) §3.1: The requirement for the Router ID to be unique within the flooding scope of the LSP has been removed. 

Please help me understand why this change is ok.  If the Router ID can be used to identify "the router who generates the inter-AS reachability TLV", not requiring unique values seems to go counter to that idea.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-03. 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 three actions which we must complete.

First, in the IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

the reference for the existing registration for TLV codepoint 141 will be changed to:

Type Description IIH LSP SNP Purge Reference
---- ---------------------- --- --- --- ----- -------------
141 inter-AS reachability n y n n [ RFC-to-be ]
information

Second, in the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

Three existing registrations will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Type Description 22 23 25 141 222 223 Reference
---- ----------------------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- -------------
24 remote AS number n n n y n n [ RFC-to-be ]
25 IPv4 remote ASBR identifier n n n y n n [ RFC-to-be ]
26 IPv6 remote ASBR identifier n n n y n n [ RFC-to-be ]

Also, in the same registry a new registration will be made as follows:

Type Description 22 23 25 141 222 223 Reference
----------------------- ----------------------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- -------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] IPv6 local ASBR identifier n n n y n n [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

two existing registrations will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ] as follows:

Type Description Reference
---- ------------------------------ -------------
11 IPv4 TE Router ID [ RFC-to-be ]
12 IPv6 TE Router ID [ RFC-to-be ]

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,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: chopps@chopps.org, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Extensions in Support of
Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and
  GMPLS Traffic Engineering'
  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 2022-09-02. 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 extensions to the Intermediate System to
  Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label
  Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
  (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASs).  It defines IS-IS
  extensions for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links,
  which can be used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.

  No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS
  is proposed or defined in this document.

  This document builds on RFC 5316 by adding support for IPv6-only
  operation.

  This document obsoletes RFC 5316.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4665/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/

Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-02

    (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. This is appropriate b/c it is replacing a proposed standard,
and "Standards Track" is indicated on 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:

    Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction
    of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are
    deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document replaces RFC 5316.

The document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous
Systems (ASs). It defines IS-IS extensions for the flooding of TE information
about inter-AS links, which can be used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.

This new revision of RFC5316 adds support for IPv6 only operation.

    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
    there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the
    consensus was particularly rough?

No, generally smooth.

    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?

Unsure if existing implementations yet; however, I believe this will be
implemented by most vendors.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Christian Hopps
AD: John Scudder

    (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.

The shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document.

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

No.

    (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.

    (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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis

No discussion.

    (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?

Strong consensus by active WG members.

    (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.

Nits are OK.


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

N/A.

    (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.

It obsoletes RFC5316l This is indicated in the title page header, and in the
abstract. Additionally there is a "Changes From" appendix.

    (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).

Reviewed and seems fine.

    (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.

This publication updates already existing 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.

N/A.

    (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?

N/A.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/

Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-02

    (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. This is appropriate b/c it is replacing a proposed standard,
and "Standards Track" is indicated on 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:

    Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction
    of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are
    deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document replaces RFC 5316.

The document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous
Systems (ASs). It defines IS-IS extensions for the flooding of TE information
about inter-AS links, which can be used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.

This new revision of RFC5316 adds support for IPv6 only operation.

    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
    there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the
    consensus was particularly rough?

No, generally smooth.

    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?

Unsure if existing implementations yet; however, I believe this will be
implemented by most vendors.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Christian Hopps
AD: John Scudder

    (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.

The shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document.

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

No.

    (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.

    (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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis

No discussion.

    (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?

Strong consensus by active WG members.

    (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.

Nits are OK.


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

N/A.

    (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.

It obsoletes RFC5316l This is indicated in the title page header, and in the
abstract. Additionally there is a "Changes From" appendix.

    (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).

Reviewed and seems fine.

    (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.

This publication updates already existing 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.

N/A.

    (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?

N/A.