A YANG Data Model for Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT)
draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang-09

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, I enjoyed reading this. I have reviwed previous AMT documents, but do not see specific transport topics in this document. There were, however,  a few places where terminolog is defined, but could be more consistently applied.

NiTs:
/a AMT Relay/ perhaps ought to be /an AMT Relay/
/AMT relay/AMT Relay/ - in various places, since "Relay" is already capitalised without AMT?
/AMT gateway/AMT Gateway/ - for consistency in text and the comments?
/Support of relay or gateway is indicated/Support of an AMT Relay or an AMT Gateway is indicated/
/relay discovery message/Relay Discovery message/ - as per RFC7450.
/relay discovery address/Relay Discovery Address/ - as per RFC7450.
/relay address/Relay Address/ - as per RFC7450.

Regards,

Gorry
- Thanks again, I note the document was updated to address these comments.

[Ballot discuss]
Overall, the draft is well written and quite clear, I appreciate the effort that went into the drafting of this.

While I have 3 bullet points in here, this is really centered on one particular topic: How to understand the "MUST"s in the Operational Considerations section.

* In this section, the ‘MUST’ is a requirement of operations?  People ‘MUST’ do that?  (Like people ‘MUST NOT’ share their passwords?). Also, wouldn’t the tunnel just fail if there are protocol mismatches?
  > 1367 5.  Operational Considerations
  >
  > 1369   This document specifies a YANG data model for AMT that configures and
  > 1370   monitors address parameters for both Relay and Gateway functions.
  > 1371   Operators MUST monitor for address family mismatches between
  > 1372   associated address parameters to ensure correct protocol operation,
  > 1373   tunnel establishment, and forwarding behavior.

* The “MUST”s in the Operatonal Considerations section are not present in RFC7450, the protocol specification.  That effectively moves things where I would normal expect protocol negotiation errors into configuration checks. Further, it appears that many of the checks for this are reliant on human checking the configuration.  Is that correct?  I’m not clear on how to apply “MUST”s in a situation like this.

* Why is this in the operations section?  Isn’t this an implementation requirement?
  > 1412   Upon detecting an address family mismatch, the device MUST log an
  > 1413   appropriate error or alarm and prevent the inconsistent configuration
  > 1414   from being applied.  Corrective actions include reconfiguring the
  > 1415   affected addresses to match the intended address family and verifying
  > 1416   routing reachability for the configured addresses.

[Ballot comment]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 13

Forgive my lack of YANG expertise, but doesn't YANG support constraints
to further restrain what values are acceptable? Would a "must" not have worked
here rather than creating a more constrained type?

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

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4.2.1, paragraph 2
-    The AMT YANG module augments the core routing YANG module "ietf-
-    routing" specified in [RFC8349].  Specifically, the AMT YANG module
-  ---------
+    The AMT YANG module augments the core routing YANG module "ietf-routing"
+                                                                    ++++++++

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 6
-      This data node includes 'family', 'anycast-prefix', and 'local-
-      address'.  The 'family' indicates the address family (IPv4 or
-    -----------
+      This data node includes 'family', 'anycast-prefix', and 'local-address'.=
+                                                                      ++++++++++

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 11
-      'local- port'), the tunnel status ('state'), the multicast flow
-              -

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 11
-      ('multicast-group- num'), the message counter carried by the
-                        -

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 11
-      tunnel ('request-message- count', 'membership-query-message-
-                                -
-      count', and 'membership-update- message-count'), and the time on
-      --------                        -
+      tunnel ('request-message-count', 'membership-query-message-count',
+                                                                  +++++++

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 12
-      address ('source-address') and multicast group address ('group-
-      address').
+      address ('source-address') and multicast group address ('group-address').
+                                                                      ++++++++++

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 13
-      Design note: The four data nodes ('gateway-address', 'gateway-
-      port', 'local-address', and 'local-port) do not reuse the standard
-      -------
+      Design note: The four data nodes ('gateway-address', 'gateway-port',
+                                                                    ++++++

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 7
-      number of AMT membership query messages received ('membership-
-      query').
+      number of AMT membership query messages received ('membership-query').
+                                                                    ++++++++

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 8
-      messages sent ('relay- discovery'), the number of AMT membership
-                            -

Section 5, paragraph 6
-      mismatch (e.g., IPv4 'anycast-prefix' paired with IPv6 'local-
-      address' under the same IPv4 'family' entry) indicates a
-      ---------
+      mismatch (e.g., IPv4 'anycast-prefix' paired with IPv6 'local-address'
+                                                                    ++++++++

Section 6, paragraph 5
-      Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-
-      protocol/: Unauthorized access to any data nodes in these subtrees
-    -----------
+      Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol/:
+                                                                    ++++++++++

Section 6, paragraph 11
-      Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-
-      protocol/: amt/relay and amt/gateway. Unauthorized access to any
-    -----------
+      Under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol/:
+                                                                    ++++++++++

Section 6, paragraph 5

The additional indent level here makes it render as a figure in the HTML
version. I assume that's not intentional; if you can't fix it yourself, please
make a note to work with the RFC Editor to get this rendered the way you intend.
Same for the next-to-last paragraph of this section.

Section 2.2, paragraph 11
> r the private secret (or key) used by a AMT Relay to compute Response Message
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour". [EN_A_VS_AN]

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 6
>  the most recent occasion at which any one or more of the tunnel's counters s
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "anyone"? [ANY_BODY]

Alternately, consider simply "one or more"

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 7
>  'gateway-port', 'local-address', and 'local-port) do not reuse the standard
>                                      ^
Unpaired symbol: "'" seems to be missing. [EN_UNPAIRED_QUOTES]

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 17
>  the most recent occasion at which any one or more of the AMT Gateway message
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "anyone"? [ANY_BODY]

Alternately, consider simply "one or more"

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 2
> hangwang.04414@h3c.com> Editor: Zheng(Sandy) Zhang                                      ^
It appears that a white space is missing. [SPACE_BEFORE_PARENTHESIS]

Section 4.3, paragraph 34
>  the most recent occasion at which any one or more of this AMT tunnel's count
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "anyone"? [ANY_BODY]

Alternately, consider simply "one or more"

Section 4.3, paragraph 40
>  the most recent occasion at which any one or more of this AMT tunnel's messa
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "anyone"? [ANY_BODY]

Alternately, consider simply "one or more"

Section 6, paragraph 4
> ail: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com Zheng(Sandy) Zhang ZTE Corporation China Ema
>                                      ^
It appears that a white space is missing. [SPACE_BEFORE_PARENTHESIS]

[Ballot comment]
Update:  Thank you for addressing my discuss.  I'm leaving my original comments below for historical reasons (they have been addressed too).

Thank you to Mike Ounesworth for their secdir review.

Section 6:  Please add a sentence or two to describe the vulnerability created by using a secret key beyond its validity period.  I can probably supply a sentence, if one doesn't come easily to mind.

Section 6, para 2:  I recommend using draft-ietf-tls-8446bis vice RFC 8446.  The draft is in Auth 48.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2.2, paragraph 2
>          |  |    +--rw anycast-prefix    inet:ip-prefix
>          |  |    +--rw local-address      inet:ip-address

The tree diagram here and in the Appendix does not match the
model. The tree diagram here seems to indicate that these
two nodes are mandatory (lack of ? after the node name)
where the model lacks any 'mandatory true' statement. Please
sync the tree here and in the Appendix with the module.

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 2
>              |  +--rw interface* [interface]
>              |    +--rw name                      if:interface-ref

The tree diagram here and the Appendix seem to indicate that the key
for this list is the 'interface'. However, the module seems to be making
the 'name' the key. What gives?

Section 4.3, paragraph 33
>                  description
>                    "A unicast IP address of the AMT Relay Address
>                    which is obtained as a result of the discovery
>                    process.

The description does not match the definition. The description seems
to imply that the value is learnt as part of the discovery process,
while the parameter is rw, i.e., operator configured.

Section 4.3, paragraph 34
>            leaf tunnel-limit {
>              type uint32;
>              description
>                "The total number of endpoints.";
>            }

This leaf description is sparse and imprecise.
Section 4.2.2 provides a much better description: "the maximum
number of endpoint Gateways that a Relay can serve simultaneously."
That description should be reflected here.

Section 4.3, paragraph 38
>                    When the 'relay-type' value is 1 or 2, this
>                    data node is used to indicate the AMT Relay of
>                    the AMT Relay RR.";

Where is this condition being enforced?

The 'relay-type' leaf determines whether 'discovery-address' or
'domain-name' is populated, i.e.,
- if relay-type = ipv4-address (1) or ipv6-address (2) → discovery-address
should be populated
- if relay-type = domain-name (3) → domain-name should be populated

There are no when or must constraints enforcing this relationship.
A configuration could have relay-type = ipv4-address with only
domain-name set (and no discovery-address) with no validation error.
At a minimum, when conditions should gate which leaf is relevant,
or must constraints should ensure the appropriate leaf is populated
for a given relay-type.

Section 4.3, paragraph 42
>                leaf gateways-timed-out {
>                  type yang:gauge64;
>                  description
>                    "Number of Gateways that timed out because
>                    of inactivity.";
>                }

The type seems to be wrong. gauge64 should be zero-based-counter64
as this is a cumulative count, based on the description, not a gauge
whose values can go up or down.

Section 4.3, paragraph 42
>                leaf relay-discovery-message-count {
>                  type yang:zero-based-counter64;
>                  config false;
>                  description
>                    "Number of AMT Relay Discovery messages sent
>                    on the interface.";
>                }
>                leaf relay-advertisement-message-count {
>                  type yang:zero-based-counter64;
>                  config false;
>                  description
>                    "Number of AMT Relay advertisement messages received
>                    on the interface.";
>                }
>                leaf request-message-count {
>                  type yang:zero-based-counter64;
>                  config false;
>                  description
>                    "Number of AMT membership request messages sent
>                    on the interface.";
>                }
>                leaf membership-query-message-count {
>                  type yang:zero-based-counter64;
>                  config false;
>                  description
>                    "Number of AMT membership query messages received
>                    on the interface.";
>                }
>                leaf membership-update-message-count {
>                  type yang:zero-based-counter64;
>                  config false;
>                  description
>                    "Number of AMT membership update messages sent
>                    on the interface.";
>                }

The relay tunnels/tunnel container correctly includes discontinuity-time.
The gateway-message-statistics container also correctly includes one.
But the per-interface counters in pseudo-interfaces/interface have no
associated discontinuity-time. These should either be added individually
per interface, or the gateway-message-statistics discontinuity-time should
be documented as covering per-interface counters too.

"Appendix B.", paragraph 0
>    This section presents a simple and illustrative example of how to
>    configure AMT.

Thank you to the authors for providing instance data examples. No
examples however, have been provided for the ATM Gateway pseudo-interface
configuration, which is the other major component defined in this draft.
Given that the gateway configuration (discovery-method, relay-discovery-address,
relay-address, timeouts) is less self-explanatory than the relay configuration,
a complementary example be appreciated by implementors.

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Term "maler"; alternatives might be "individual", "people", "person"
* Terms "natively" and "native"; alternatives might be "built-in",
  "fundamental", "ingrained", "intrinsic", "original"

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

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4.3, paragraph 24
>      identity discoverying {
>        base tunnel-state-base;
>        description
>          "The Relay Discovery message has been sent
>          and is waiting for the Advertisement message.";
>      }

s/discoverying/discovering/

Section 2.2, paragraph 11
> r the private secret (or key) used by a AMT Relay to compute Response Message
>                                      ^
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

Section 4.2.2, paragraph 7
>  the most recent occasion at which any one or more of the tunnel's counters s
>                                    ^^^^^^^
Did you mean "anyone"?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, I enjoted reading this. I have reviwed previous AMT documents, but do not see specific transport topics in this document. There were, however,  a few places where terminolog is defined, but could be more consistently applied.

NiTs:
/a AMT Relay/ perhaps ought to be /an AMT Relay/
/AMT relay/AMT Relay/ - in various places, since "Relay" is already capitalised without AMT?
/AMT gateway/AMT Gateway/ - for consistency in text and the comments?
/Support of relay or gateway is indicated/Support of an AMT Relay or an AMT Gateway is indicated/
/relay discovery message/Relay Discovery message/ - as per RFC7450.
/relay discovery address/Relay Discovery Address/ - as per RFC7450.
/relay address/Relay Address/ - as per RFC7450.

Regards,

Gorry

[Ballot discuss]
I'm raising this comment to the level of a discuss because I believe that the word 'timeout' will lead to a misinterpretation of the term and thus result in a vulnerability. 

Section 2.2 and throughout the rest of the draft, Secret Key Timeout:  I agree with Eric Vynke, this is not a valid term, either use 'Secret Key Cryptoperiod', or 'Secret Key Validity Period'.  Timeout - 'A specified period of time that will be allowed to elapse in a system before a specified event is to take place, unless another specified event occurs first'. Keys have cryptoperiods, times beyond when they should no longer be used.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Mike Ounesworth for their secdir review.

Section 6:  Please add a sentence or two to describe the vulnerability created by using a secret key beyond its validity period.  I can probably supply a sentence, if one doesn't come easily to mind.

Section 6, para 2:  I recommend using draft-ietf-tls-8446bis vice RFC 8446.  The draft is in Auth 48.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, I have not reviewed the mcast aspects as it is the produce of the MBONED WG.

Please find some comments below, a reply by the authors will be welcome even if only for my own education.

Section 3: is `secret key timeout` a valid term ? I would have expected 'lifetime' or 'validity' rather than 'timeout'. Same applies for some leaves nodes.

Leaf nodes anycast-prefix and local address: why not a MUST in `If 'family' is IPv4, it SHOULD be an IPv4 prefix;` ?

Is there a reason why the `leaf local-address` node specification in the relay tree is different than in the gateway tree ?

Regards,

-éric

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

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

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

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

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-amt
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-amt
Prefix: amt
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.

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-04-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: austin.mantz@hpe.com, draft-ietf-mboned-amt-yang@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) to
consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Automatic Multicast
Tunneling (AMT)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-04-08. 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 defines a YANG data model for the management of
  Automatic Multicast Tunneling (AMT) protocol operations.




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



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from the
  the MBONED WG.

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

  No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No, technology is contained within the MBONED WG and there is no relevant overlap with other WGs. YANG Doctors review completed.

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

  YANG Doctors review completed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  YANG module has been checked and is compliant with NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The document does not include any formal language sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, the document is well written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    Key Topics were not relevant to this draft. No issues were identified. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as a YANG Module.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
    No authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/AsbU-tnXkRg8ZzhdtxtGEWISqiQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/QZT3BrMx-5XLKESkUgp_GmlbTLA/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ijLJyrCxDYnWLRlYXlvPmfABLTQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/jmYMWErTgPLByklxO673_MaffCQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zQGCMsynnugfzMXurj1QG7m7fa8/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, all 5 authors are listed and support the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Warnings were found and will be cleaned up.

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

    No.

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

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    None.

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

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    The document includes two IANA actions with clear instructions.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.
   
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from the
  the MBONED WG.

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

  No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No, technology is contained within the MBONED WG and there is no relevant overlap with other WGs. YANG Doctors review completed.

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

  YANG Doctors review completed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  YANG module has been checked and is compliant with NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The document does not include any formal language sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, the document is well written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    Key Topics were not relevant to this drat. No issues were identified. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as a YANG Module.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
    No authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/AsbU-tnXkRg8ZzhdtxtGEWISqiQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/QZT3BrMx-5XLKESkUgp_GmlbTLA/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ijLJyrCxDYnWLRlYXlvPmfABLTQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/jmYMWErTgPLByklxO673_MaffCQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zQGCMsynnugfzMXurj1QG7m7fa8/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, all 5 authors are listed and support the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Warnings were found and will be cleaned up.

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

    No.

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

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    None.

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

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    The document includes two IANA actions with clear instructions.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.
   
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from the
  the MBONED WG.

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

  No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No, technology is contained within the MBONED WG and there is no relevant overlap with other WGs. YANG Doctors review completed.

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

  YANG Doctors review completed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  YANG module has been checked and is compliant with NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The document does not include any formal language sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, the document is well written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    Key Topics were not relevant to this drat. No issues were identified. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as a YANG Module.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
    No authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/AsbU-tnXkRg8ZzhdtxtGEWISqiQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/QZT3BrMx-5XLKESkUgp_GmlbTLA/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ijLJyrCxDYnWLRlYXlvPmfABLTQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/jmYMWErTgPLByklxO673_MaffCQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zQGCMsynnugfzMXurj1QG7m7fa8/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, all 5 authors are listed and support the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Warnings were found and will be cleaned up.

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

    No.

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

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    None.

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

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    There are no IANA Considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.
   
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from the
  the MBONED WG.

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

  No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No, technology is contained within the MBONED WG and there is no relevant overlap with other WGs. YANG Doctors review completed.

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

  YANG Doctors review completed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  YANG module has been checked and is compliant with NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The document does not include any formal language sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, the document is well written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    Key Topics were not relevant to this drat. No issues were identified. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as a YANG Module.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
    No authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/AsbU-tnXkRg8ZzhdtxtGEWISqiQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/QZT3BrMx-5XLKESkUgp_GmlbTLA/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ijLJyrCxDYnWLRlYXlvPmfABLTQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/jmYMWErTgPLByklxO673_MaffCQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zQGCMsynnugfzMXurj1QG7m7fa8/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, all 5 authors are listed and support the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Warnings were found and will be cleaned up.

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

    No.

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

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    None.

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

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    There are no IANA Considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.
   
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

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

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

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

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

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

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  The document reached strong consensus to advance, with contributors from the
  the MBONED WG.

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

  No.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  No, technology is contained within the MBONED WG and there is no relevant overlap with other WGs. YANG Doctors review completed.

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

  YANG Doctors review completed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  YANG module has been checked and is compliant with NMDA.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  The document does not include any formal language sections.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes, the document is well written and complete.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    Key Topics were not relevant to this drat. No issues were identified. 

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as a YANG Module.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    Yes, the co-authors have filed their disclosures on the MBONED mailing list.
    No authors listed a potentially relevant IPR: -

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/AsbU-tnXkRg8ZzhdtxtGEWISqiQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/QZT3BrMx-5XLKESkUgp_GmlbTLA/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/ijLJyrCxDYnWLRlYXlvPmfABLTQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/jmYMWErTgPLByklxO673_MaffCQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/zQGCMsynnugfzMXurj1QG7m7fa8/


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes, all 5 authors are listed and support the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    Warnings were found and will be cleaned up.

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

    No.

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

    None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    None.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    None.

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

    No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    There are no IANA Considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    There are no IANA considerations that require designated expert review.
   
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/