OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-06

[Ballot comment]
The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

Thanks to Christer Holmberg for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zayJNOhwH1aA53cmY44IINORV-I).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
* http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this short document.  Only one minor question regarding how the existing OSPF code points are being changed.  I presume that it has been discussed and there is a good reason as to why the existing OSPF code point is not being relabeled as OSFPv2 to avoid long term confusion?

Rob

[Ballot comment]
Section 4

  When the protocol field in the received Segment ID sub-TLV Type 35
  and Type 36 is OSPF (value 1), the responder MAY treat the protocol
  value as "Any IGP Protocol" (value 0) according to step 4a of
  Section 7.4 of [RFC8287].  This allows the responder to support
  legacy implementations that use value 1 to indicate OSPFv3.

Is there any guidance to give on how long we expect there to be need for
the "treat as any" behavior to be implemented?  ("No" is a valid
answer.)

Section 6

  This document updates [RFC8287], by specifying that the "OSPF" code
  points SHOULD be used only for OSPFv2.

Why do we use SHOULD here but say in §4 that the initiator "MUST NOT set
[...] as OSPF (value 1)"?

Section 7

I have a mild preference for noting in the I-D when an early allocation
is being confirmed, but since it doesn't end up in the final RFC it
probably doesn't really matter.

Section 8

Pedantically, this document does encourage you ("MAY") to treat the
OSPV(v2) codepoint as "any protocol" in a couple of scenarios, which
would in principle open up a risk of an attacker causing you to use
(e.g.) IS-IS when OSPF was intended.  Is that a significant new risk?
Probably not.  But it may be enough to move away from saying "does not
introduce any additional security considerations".  "no significant new
security considerations" would be unobjectionable to me.

NITS

Section 6

  the Protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV.  Section 6 of [RFC8287]
  defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of
  the DDMAP TLV.

I'd suggest expanding "DDMAP" here.

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV registry on the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Value: 3
Meaning: OSPFv3
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the note to value 1 will be changed to:

"To be used for OSPFv2 only"

Second, in the Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV registry on the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Value: 7
Meaning: OSPFv3
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the note to value 5 will be changed to:

"To be used for OSPFv2 only"

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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-06-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Loa Andersson , draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP
Ping'
  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 2021-06-21. 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


  IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment IS Sub-TLV" and "Protocol
  in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
  registries under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
  Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry.  RFC8287 defines the
  code points for OSPF and IS-IS.

  This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
  Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
  This document also updates RFC8287 by clarifying that the existing
  "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by
  defining the behavior when the Segment ID SUb-TLV indicates the use
  of IPv6.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint/



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

The MPLS Working Group request that

            OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

Is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

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

  This document should be published an RFC on the Standards Track.
  The document header says Standard Track.

  This document makes necessary adjustments and extensions to
  registries where the registration Procedures are Standards Action.


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

Technical Summary:

  This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
  Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
  This document also updates RFC8287 by clarifying that the existing
  "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by
  defining the behavior when the Segment ID SUb-TLV indicates the use
  of IPv6.

Working Group Summary:

  The progress of this document was smooth and it is generally
  understood within the working group that the document is needed.

Document Quality:

  There are existing implementations of the protocol, using the early
  allocations.

Personnel:

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.

  Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director
.
  Note: Deborah Brungard was the responsible AD at the time of the
  early allocation of code points for this document.


(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 Document Shepherd/Working Group Chair was part of the
  discussion that lead to the decision to write this document
  and the Shepherd has closely followed every step until the
  document is now ready for IESG review.

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

  No such concerns! The document has been reviewed by all the key
  people.

(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 such review necessary.

(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.

  No such concerns!

(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?

  The authors (no contributors listed) have all confirmed that they
  are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.


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

  There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

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

  The working group support this document.

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

(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.

  The document passes the Nits-tool clean, no other nits identified.

  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a down ref (see below).

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

  No formal reviews necessary.

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

  There are no informative references. But this is a correct
  treatment of the references.

(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?

  All the references are to existing standard track RFCs and
  to BCP 14.

(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 down-ref's!
  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a non IETF document and a down-ref.
  The document is of the opinion that that this can't be construed
  as a down-ref.


(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.

  This document updates RFC 8287, this is listed in the header and
  discussed in the Abstract and Introduction.

(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).

  This document is about codepoints and interpretation of
  codepoints, so reviewing the document is implicitly reviewing
  the IANA section.

  However, there is also a well-written IANA section. the Shepherd
  has been involved in and agreed to any changes in the IANA section.

  The IANA registries from which the new codepoints are allocated
  (early allocation) are clearly identified.

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

  No new 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.

  No such reviews performed.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools)
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting
errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing
them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  This is not a YANG model

The MPLS Working Group request that

            OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

Is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

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

  This document should be published an RFC on the Standards Track.
  The document header says Standard Track.

  This document makes necessary adjustments and extensions to
  registries where the registration Procedures are Standards Action.


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

Technical Summary:

  This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
  Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
  This document also updates RFC8287 by clarifying that the existing
  "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by
  defining the behavior when the Segment ID SUb-TLV indicates the use
  of IPv6.

Working Group Summary:

  The progress of this document was smooth and it is generally
  understood within the working group that the document is needed.

Document Quality:

  There are existing implementations of the protocol, using the early
  allocations.

Personnel:

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.

  Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director
.
  Note: Deborah Brungard was the responsible AD at the time of the
  early allocation of code points for this document.


(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 Document Shepherd/Working Group Chair was part of the
  discussion that lead to the decision to write this document
  and the Shepherd has closely followed every step until the
  document is now ready for IESG review.

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

  No such concerns! The document has been reviewed by all the key
  people.

(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 such review necessary.

(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.

  No such concerns!

(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?

  The authors (no contributors listed) have all confirmed that they
  are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.


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

  There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

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

  The working group support this document.

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

(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.

  The document passes the Nits-tool clean, no other nits identified.

  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a down ref (see below).

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

  No formal reviews necessary.

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

  There are no informative references. But this is a correct
  treatment of the references.

(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?

  All the references are to existing standard track RFCs and
  to BCP 14.

(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 down-ref's!
  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a non IETF document and a down-ref.
  The document is of the opinion that that this can't be construed
  as a down-ref.


(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.

  This document updates RFC 8287, this is listed in the header and
  discussed in the Abstract and Introduction.

(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).

  This document is about codepoints and interpretation of
  codepoints, so reviewing the document is implicitly reviewing
  the IANA section.

  However, there is also a well-written IANA section. the Shepherd
  has been involved in and agreed to any changes in the IANA section.

  The IANA registries from which the new codepoints are allocated
  (early allocation) are clearly identified.

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

  No new 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.

  No such reviews performed.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools)
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting
errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing
them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  This is not a YANG model

The MPLS Working Group request that

            OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
          draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint

Is published as an RFC on the Standards Track.

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

  This document should be published an RFC on the Standards Track
  (Proposed Standard).
  The ducument header says Standard TRack.

  This document makes necesary adjustments and extensins to
  registries where the registration Procedures are Srandars Action.


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

Technical Summary:

  This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
  Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
  This document also updates RFC8287 by clarifying that the existing
  "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by
  defining the behavior when the Segment ID SUb-TLV indicates the use
  of IPv6.

Working Group Summary:

  The progress of this document was smooth and it is generally
  understood within the working group that the document is needed.

Document Quality:

  There are existing implementations of the protocol, using the early
  allocations.

Personnel:

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.

  Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director
.
  Note: Deborah Brungard was the responsible AD at the time of the
  early allocation of code points for this document.


(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 Document Shepherd/Working Group Chair was part of the
  disccussion that lead to the decission to write this document
  and the Shepherd has closely followed every step until the
  document is now ready for IESG review.

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

  No such concerns! The document has been reviewed by all the key
  people.

(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 such review necessary.

(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.

  No such concerns!

(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?

  The authors (no contributors listed) have all confirmed that they
  are unaware of any IPR that relates to this document.


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

  There are no IPR disclosures against this document.

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

  The working group support this document.

(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 such threats.

(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.

  The document passes the Nits-tool clean, no other nits identified.

  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a down ref (see below).

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

  No formal reviews necessary.

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

  There are no informative references. But this is a correct
  treatment of the references.

(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?

  All the references are to existing standard track RFCs and
  to BCP 14.

(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 down-ref's!
  Nits tool point to a reference to the LSP Ping IANA register and
  ask if that is a non IETF document and a down-ref.
  The document is of the opinion that that this can't be construed
  as a down-ref.


(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.

  This document updates RFC 8287, this is listed in the header and
  discussed in the Abstract and Introduction.

(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).

  This document is about codepoints and interpretation of
  codepoints, so reviewing the document is implicitly reviewing
  the IANA section.

  However, there is also a well-written IANA section. the Shepherd
  has been involded in and agreed to any changes in the IANA section.

  The IANA registries from which the new codepoints are allocated
  (early allocation) are clearly identified.

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

  No new 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.

  No such reviews performed.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools)
for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting
errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing
them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  This is not a YANG model