YANG Groupings for HTTP Clients and HTTP Servers
draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-23

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this complex group of specifications.

I have following comments/questions and I believe addressing those will improve the specification

  - May be I am failing to see the whole picture but I understand that draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server defines tls-common module along with  tls-client and tls-server modules, but I don't see the Section 3.1.2.2 mentions tls-common module which is common to both client and server. is this an overlook? if not then, I would expect some description of how tls-common module is used here or not used here. ( I was initially thinking of this as discuss worthy but as I am not sure I understand how this whole thing is used together I am putting it as comment, and here is your chance to educate me :-) )
 
  - Looking at Section 3.1.2.2 the quic-supported tree, I am wondering if this how it should be done or not. As TLS 1.3 is ovened into QUIC, QUIC take cares of the TLS record layer, the way tls-server-parameters and tls-server-grouping is used would it be sufficient? may be it does, but I dont understand it as TLS is not used with QUIC as it is used with TCP.
 
  - proxy-connect feature only refers to CONNECT method of RFC9110, but what about the CONNECT-UDP (RFC9298) that http clients can use to connect via proxy? Is that considered here but explicitly put out of scope? I can see HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 clients can use CONNECT-UDP method which is derived from CONNECT method.

XML expert Tim Bray pointed out nits at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/M19Ou5mCZ0wWJlGye1Vvn_X05Lo/ and in his subsequent message, but agreed that the IANA review state could be called "IANA OK."

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Mark Nottingham for his HTTPDIR review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ZB0rAH2qZMF81THzvnDp7WI7eqM/

Mark brings up valid points about clients' HTTP configuration, as well as support for future HTTP versions (for the server) - I'd like to see Mark's concerns addressed before the document move forwards.

Review copied for convenience:

review-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-23-httpdir-telechat-nottingham-2024-08-19-00

> My recollection of our most recent discussions of this draft were that it
> _might_ make sense to allow configuration of what version(s) of HTTP a server
> supports, but not a client. Since -17, it appears the opposite has been done:
> while server configuration remains the same, client configuration now allows
> enumeration of supported versions.

> Additionally, support is indicated by using separate, version-specific
> indicators. This is a closed list and does not accommodate future versions of
> the protocol. Can this be an array of strings instead? That would also allow us
> to avoid the awkward phrasing in the introduction, which leads readers to
> believe the set of HTTP versions is closed (counter to BCP56).

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my previous DISCUSS and some COMMENT and nit.

Remaining point

## Section 3.1.1

I can only repeat my comment on the -17: `Having a module only using basic authentication seems *very* restrictive in 2024... I would have expected the WG to specify a YANG module supporting other authentication scheme.`

Having another RFC to augment the two modules of this I-D is probably not optimum, e.g., for TLS mutual authentication.

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-23

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit.

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

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS (blocking)

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

## Circular reference

A trivial blocking DISCUSS: the first informative reference for this I-D is itself ;-)

See section 6.2 (I should have spotted this when balloting on -17)

[Ballot comment]

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)


## Section 1.1

`This document presents one or more YANG modules` but the previous section says `This document presents two YANG 1.1 modules`. Let's be consistent.

## Section 3.1.1

I can only repeat my comment on the -17: `Having a module only using basic authentication seems *very* restrictive in 2024... I would have expected the WG to specify a YANG module supporting other authentication scheme.`

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 2.3

s/"RFC 9114 - HTTP/3"/"RFC 9114: HTTP/3"/ ?

[Ballot comment]
The only comment I have (which I will not forward) is the reoccurring issue of Security Considerations in these drafts don't actually address security issues.  But that is merely my inability to look past it.

[Ballot comment]
Feedback from Orie Steele, incoming ART AD:

eaf server-name {
      nacm:default-deny-write;
      type string;
      description
        "The value of the 'Server' header field.  If not set, then
        underlying software's default value is used.  Set to the
        empty string to disable.";
    }
 
I'm not a YANG expert, is "type string" shorthand for "UTF-8 string" ?

I don't see any ART review, are there any i18n issues expected with this document?

[Ballot discuss]
(Let me know if I am misunderstanding how this YANG module would be deployed.  I was envisioning this being a stand-alone configuration.)

Constraining credential use:
** Section 2.3.  Per “grouping http-client-identity-grouping” how does one constrain the use of the username/password to a particular webserver?

** Section 2.3.  Per “tls-client-parameters” and support for a client certificate.

-- Editorial.  I was expected statement in the text to explain to me that this is a client certificate for mutually authenticated TLS (mTLS)
-- If a client certificate is configured, does that imply the implementation will always use this certificate if mTLS is requested by the server?  How does one constrain the places/servers a certificate would be used?

-- If configured with multiple client certificates, how does which is the appropriate certificate to use?

[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.3.  Is it possible to configure a client-auth-supported/basic-auth-support without tls-supported?  If so, can there be caution added about such arrangements

** Section 4.1 and 4.2.  Certain nodes are called out a vulnerable with write-access.  Can the rationale and impact of misuse please be explained.

** Section 4.1 and 4.2 use a very concerning editorial construct that could be easily misinterpreted.  Paragraph one reads “Please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules that define nodes that may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.  Please review the Security Considerations for dependent YANG modules for information as to which nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.”  This text followed by another paragraph which then says “None of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.” 

The first paragraph is unambiguous (i.e., check the references and their Security Considerations apply).  The second paragraph’s accuracy depends on an interpretation that “defined in this YANG module” excludes imported modules.  I believe that clearer language is needed here.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. This looks good to me from transport protocol point of view.

I have following comment and I believe if addressed properly, it will improve the document quality -

# Section 1 says -

    It is intended that these groupings will be used to help define the configuration for simple HTTP-based protocols (not for complete web servers or browsers).

  I would like to see some examples of the "simple HTTP-based protocols" - the words in parenthesis does not help the distinction. The motivation and usage of this protocol should be specified clearly.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-17

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

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

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## What about HTTP3 ?

Is HTTP/3 (RFC 9114) so different to HTTP1/HTTP2 that it is not included in this I-D ?

## Section 2.1.2.1

Having a module only using basic authentication seems *very* restrictive in 2024... I would have expected the WG to specify a YANG module supporting other authentication scheme.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-16. 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/

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

ID: yang:ietf-http-server
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-http-server
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 initiated and 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/

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

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

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files 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 2024-02-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Groupings for HTTP 1.1/2.0 Clients and HTTP Servers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'YANG Groupings for HTTP 1.1/2.0
Clients and HTTP Servers'
  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 2024-02-09. 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 two YANG modules: the first defines a minimal
  grouping for configuring an HTTP client, and the second defines a
  minimal grouping for configuring an HTTP server.  It is intended that
  these groupings will be used to help define the configuration for
  simple HTTP-based protocols (not for complete web servers or
  browsers).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server/



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 is part of a larger set of documents that were developed together. This was but one of those documents. The consensus, which was with a few individuals, was mostly for the entire set of documents.

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

The only controversy, which was early on, was with the scope of the document, and whether the work should be done in NETCONF or the HTTPBIS WG. After discussion with the chairs of HTTPSBIS WG, the scope of the document was narrowed down to what was needed to support the RESTCONF protocol, for which HTTP forms the transport protocol, and it was agreed that the work would stay with NETCONF WG.

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. No one has objected in very strong terms any areas of conflict.

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)?

draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif uses groupings defined in this 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.

This document was cross-posted to the HTTPBIS WG for their reviews and comments, and any comments received from them were incorporated into the document.

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.

The document has been reviewed by YANG doctors, and the comments from that review have been incorporated into the document.

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]?

The document has a couple of warnings that result from validating them with yanglint. The document is complaint 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 has a couple of examples in the form of XML, but because the examples are incomplete, they cannot be validated.

## 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?

The document is needed to configure and manage RESTCONF, is clearly written, and designed in a way that it can be used in conjunction with other documents. It has one possible issue which needs to be addressed before it can be sent to the AD.

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?

N/A.

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?

This document is of type Proposed Standard because of definitions for how HTTP protocol needs to be used when the groupings defined in the document are used.

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.

An IPR poll was issued and all the authors affirmed that no IPRs apply towards the draft.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/?q=ipr%20draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server

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.

There is only one author/editor of the draft.

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.)

No I-D nits have been identified.

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

The informative and normative references have been cited correctly.

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

All the normative references are freely available to anyone.

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.

N/A.

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?

N/A.

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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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 IANA considerations makes two additions, one to the "IETF XML" registry and the other to the "YANG Modules Names" registry. The registration identifies all the entries for the registry.

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.

N/A.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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 is part of a larger set of documents that were developed together. This was but one of those documents. The consensus, which was with a few individuals, was mostly for the entire set of documents.

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

The only controversy, which was early on, was with the scope of the document, and whether the work should be done in NETCONF or the HTTPBIS WG. After discussion with the chairs of HTTPSBIS WG, the scope of the document was narrowed down to what was needed to support the RESTCONF protocol, for which HTTP forms the transport protocol, and it was agreed that the work would stay with NETCONF WG.

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. No one has objected in very strong terms any areas of conflict.

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)?

draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif uses groupings defined in this 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.

This document was cross-posted to the HTTPBIS WG for their reviews and comments, and any comments received from them were incorporated into the document.

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.

The document has been reviewed by YANG doctors, and the comments from that review have been incorporated into the document.

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]?

The document has a couple of warnings that result from validating them with yanglint. The document is complaint 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 has a couple of examples in the form of XML, but because the examples are incomplete, they cannot be validated.

## 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?

The document is needed to configure and manage RESTCONF, is clearly written, and designed in a way that it can be used in conjunction with other documents. It has one possible issue which needs to be addressed before it can be sent to the AD.

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?

N/A.

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?

This document is of type Proposed Standard because of definitions for how HTTP protocol needs to be used when the groupings defined in the document are used.

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.

An IPR poll was issued and all the authors affirmed that no IPRs apply towards the draft.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/?q=ipr%20draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server

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.

There is only one author/editor of the draft.

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.)

No I-D nits have been identified.

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

The informative and normative references have been cited correctly.

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

All the normative references are freely available to anyone.

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.

N/A.

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?

N/A.

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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFC.

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 IANA considerations makes two additions, one to the "IETF XML" registry and the other to the "YANG Modules Names" registry. The registration identifies all the entries for the registry.

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.

N/A.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/