A YANG Data Model for a Keystore and Keystore Operations
draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-35

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Sandra Murphy for the IETF LC SECDIR review and Magnus Nyström for the early SECDIR review.

Thanks for the explanation on the Section 4.* crytpo API.  I recommend adding clarifying language to the effect of the details and authorization model associated with this API is out of scope for this document.

Thanks for addressing my other DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback.

[Ballot comment]
I support Roman's DISCUSS with respect to the text of Section 5.1.

====

Additional comments from incoming AD, Orie Steele:

Same comment, as I made on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types, regarding base64 encoding, consider a direct reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4648/#section-4

> These examples assume the existence of an example module called "ex-keystore-usage" having the namespace "http://example.com/ns/example-keystore-usage".

Since changing the URL changes the namespace, lets make this https before publishing?

You might also consider using the `.example`, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.example


Under: Protocol accessible nodes

"encrypted-private-key/encrypted-private-key" is this duplication intentional?

> If the KEK is an asymmetric key, then the server MAY provide an API enabling the encryption of other keys or, alternatively, assume the administrators can do so themselves using the asymmetric key's public half.

Why not SHOULD?

> A server MUST possess (or be able to possess, in case the KEK has been encrypted by yet another KEK) a KEK's cleartext value so that it can decrypt the other keys in the configuration at runtime.

Is a cleartext value really needed here? or can the server just maintain an API for the key by reference.

[Ballot discuss]
I support Roman's discuss with respect to the backup/restore procedure. Perhaps limit it to say that a global KEK could be used to facilitate this, but not go into details on how this would work with diagrams?


Similar to draft-ietf-yang-crypto-types:

    |    +--rw certificates
    |    |  +--rw certificate* [name]
    |    |    +--rw name                      string

Certificate identity is either done by entire DN, The Common Name (CN) RDN,
or by a list of subjectAltName (SAN) entries. Can the latter be expressed
here? Should a type be introduced? ("CN", "DN", "SAN") ? Should the type be
a list as 1 certificate can have multiple identities via multiple SAN entries.

See also:

    +--rw end-entity-cert-with-key* [name]
        +--rw name
        |      string


Section 4.1:

        A server MUST possess (or be able to possess, in case the KEK has
        been encrypted by yet another KEK) a KEK's cleartext value so that
        it can decrypt the other keys in the configuration at runtime.

Perhaps "MUST possess access to KEK or API using the KEK"? A server might
be using a TEE and not really have the KEK itself, but it can send a decryption
job to an API inside the TEE that could use the KEK and return the decrypted
key. In this case, the server does sort of "possess" the key but never its
"cleartext value".

Section 4.2:

        Implementations SHOULD provide an API that simultaneously generates and encrypts a key (symmetric or asymmetric) using a KEK.

Should that say "(symmetric or private asymmetric)" ?

Section 5.1:

        In order to satisfy the expectations of a "keystore", it
        is RECOMMENDED that implementations ensure that the keystore
        contents are encrypted when persisted to non-volatile memory.

I would probably add "and ensure keystore contents that have been decrypted in
volatile memory are zeroized when not in use".

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

Section 1.5:
> Various examples in this document use "BASE64VALUE=" as a placeholder value for binary data has has been base64 encoded.

Please add a reference to RFC 4648 (Section 4) when mentioning that this document uses base64 encoded value in its examples. (Note that this is different from the companion doc draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types since this one does not define encoding for binary types the same ways that one does, as far as I can tell. However a ref to the base64 spec should be added when mentioned.)

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-30

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 Qin Wu for the shepherd's write-up (even if 15 months old) 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)

## Not repeating comments

I won't repeat here the comments of my ballots on the companion I-Ds about key rollover and missing 'not valid before'. Discussion is under way in separate email threads.

## Section 4.1

`the server MUST provide an API for administrators`, while a valid statement, is not about a YANG data model while both the title and the abstract of this document are specific for the data model. It would have been better to have a less restrictive title, e.g., "Keystore operations and YANG data model".

Same applies for the whole section 4.3: a useful section but unrelated to the I-D title/abstract.

## Section 4.3

Please expand NACM at first use and not later ;)

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-30

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

Special thanks to Qin Wu for the shepherd's write-up (even if 15 months old) 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)

## Not repeating comments

I won't repeat here the comments of my ballots on the companion I-Ds about key rollover and missing 'not valid before'. Discussion is under way in separate email threads.

## Section 4.1

`the server MUST provide an API for administrators`, while a valid statement, is not about a YANG data model while both the title and the abstract of this document are specific for the data model. It would have been better to have a less restrictive title, e.g., "Keystore operations and YANG data model".

Same applies for the whole section 4.3: a useful section but unrelated to the I-D title/abstract.

## Section 4.3

Please expand NACM at first use and not later ;)

[Ballot comment]
I support Roman's DISCUSS.

Also, when reading this document I initially got excited, thinking that I'd find more text on the 'hidden keys', but my excitement was short lived...:-)

Assuming you add text to the other YANG crypto types document, perhaps you can include it here too?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification.

I support Roman's discuss point on section 5.1, it needs to be clear on what could allow the exception.

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 4.  This section seems to define a workflow and mandatory server capabilities above and beyond what is typically done by a RESTCONF/NETCONF using a YANG module.  The introduction of this section says it applies to backup and restore.  I’m having some trouble a few of the details.

Section 4.1, “If a KEK is a symmetric key, then the server MUST provide an API for administrators to encrypt other keys without needing to know the symmetric key's value.” 

-- When in the backup and restore process is the administrator using this API and what is the relationship between it’s use and the YANG module?  I observe that the API in question isn’t labeled (in a way I recognized) in the workflow diagram in Section 4.3.  Perhaps the administrator is constructing a YANG-based configuration by hand and using this API to encrypt a key?

-- Is the expectation that this API is accessible over the network?  Can the admin only invoke it locally?  Are there any controls expected to govern who gets to invoke this mandatory API?

-- Is the “server” here the NETCONF/RESTCONF server?  Does it have to be?  I ask because this text says, “the server”.  However, Section 4.2 allows for generation+encryption “outside of the server”

Section 4.2, “Implementations SHOULD provide an API that simultaneously generates and encrypts a key (symmetric or asymmetric) using a KEK.

-- (related to the above) Implementations of what?  Is this normative guidance for NETCONF/RESTCONF server now provide additional functionality?

** Section 5.1. 
  In order to satisfy the expectations of a "keystore", it is
  RECOMMENDED that implementations ensure that the keystore contents   
  are encrypted when persisted to non-volatile memory.

If this recommendation is NOT followed how would this expectation be satisfied.  Wouldn’t ensuring that the keystore is encrypted be mandatory?  Especially if cleartext passwords are used?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Sandra Murphy for the IETF LC SECDIR review and Magnus Nyström for the early SECDIR review.

** Section 4.3, “A MK is commonly a globally-unique built-in (see Section 3)
asymmetric key.”

-- If the MK is not built-in, the text only suggests “commonly”, how are any of the promised scalability properties realized?

Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Reese Enghardt. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-keystore-29. 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-keystore
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-keystore
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests a registration 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/

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-keystore
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-keystore
Prefix: ks
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 2024-01-24):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bill.wu@huawei.com, draft-ietf-netconf-keystore@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:  (A YANG Data Model for a Keystore) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for a Keystore'
  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 2024-01-24. 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 module called "ietf-keystore" that
  enables centralized configuration of both symmetric and asymmetric
  keys.  The secret value for both key types may be encrypted or
  hidden.  Asymmetric keys may be associated with certificates.
  Notifications are sent when certificates are about to expire.




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



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?

  This draft was last called together with other two companion drafts, i.e.,
  draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types and draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews and inputs standard for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 21 people for valuable reviews.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No controversy.
 
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.)
 
  Some debates after WGLC on SSH/TLS key generation support, but it reached agreement at last.
 
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)?
    The author of this document reported that there are several implementation of
  of the higher-level drafts.
## 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, but two Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR and two YANG reviews
  has been requested from YANG Doctor Design team.All four reviews have occurred.
 
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.
 
  Two YANG Doctor review have been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
  Two Security review have been carried out by Magnus Nystrom and Sandra L. Murphy
  respectively which can be found in the datatracker as well.

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 PYANG compilation tool in the datatracker shows no errors and warnings in YANG.
  Yes, the YANG module complies with the NMDA architecture.
 
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.

  xml2rfc ietf tool and rfcfold, pyang,yanglint automation tools have been installed
  to validate sections of the final version of the document including example snippets.
  These tools show no errors and warnings in the document.
 
## 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 shepherd reviewed the discussion of this document in more details during WGLC and after WGLC
  and author of this document has addressed all the comments.
 
  The document shepherd also reviewed the document again as part of this
  process and found a few remaining, but minor comments. These comments have been addressed in v-26.
 
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?

    Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
    YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well followed.
    There is no ndeed for additional review.

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?

    The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed standard.
    It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been implemented. Yes, the 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][8]? 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.

    WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2020-06-02,which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/31l9RngIfzy7IOt6fsxG6fxFLLo/
    The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR related to this document on 2020-06-18,
    which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/RK8iBi2fGmmwsYtZQE7pfPPw6cA/

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 for this document. Therefore the question listed here doesn't
    apply.

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.)

    idnits tool flags no issues and warnings. Everything looks fine after reading
    the content guidelines on author.ietf.org.

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

    None.

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 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.

    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 change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
    imports module defined in I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types and RFC8341 which are
    normative references.

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 shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm two new registries
    are correctly specified and consistent with the body of this document.The referenced IANA
    registries have been clearly identified.

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.
   
    None.
[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?

  This draft was last called together with other two companion drafts, i.e.,
  draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types and draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews and inputs standard for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 21 people for valuable reviews.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No controversy.
 
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.)
 
  Some debates after WGLC on SSH/TLS key generation support, but it reached agreement at last.
 
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)?
    The author of this document reported that there are several implementation of
  of the higher-level drafts.
## 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, but two Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR and two YANG reviews
  has been requested from YANG Doctor Design team.All four reviews have occurred.
 
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.
 
  Two YANG Doctor review have been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
  Two Security review have been carried out by Magnus Nystrom and Sandra L. Murphy
  respectively which can be found in the datatracker as well.

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 PYANG compilation tool in the datatracker shows no errors and warnings in YANG.
  Yes, the YANG module complies with the NMDA architecture.
 
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.

  xml2rfc ietf tool and rfcfold, pyang,yanglint automation tools have been installed
  to validate sections of the final version of the document including example snippets.
  These tools show no errors and warnings in the document.
 
## 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 shepherd reviewed the discussion of this document in more details during WGLC and after WGLC
  and author of this document has addressed all the comments.
 
  The document shepherd also reviewed the document again as part of this
  process and found a few remaining, but minor comments. These comments have been addressed in v-26.
 
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?

    Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
    YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well followed.
    There is no ndeed for additional review.

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?

    The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed standard.
    It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been implemented. Yes, the 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][8]? 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.

    WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2020-06-02,which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/31l9RngIfzy7IOt6fsxG6fxFLLo/
    The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR related to this document on 2020-06-18,
    which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/RK8iBi2fGmmwsYtZQE7pfPPw6cA/

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 for this document. Therefore the question listed here doesn't
    apply.

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.)

    idnits tool flags no issues and warnings. Everything looks fine after reading
    the content guidelines on author.ietf.org.

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

    None.

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 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.

    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 change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
    imports module defined in I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types and RFC8341 which are
    normative references.

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 shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm two new registries
    are correctly specified and consistent with the body of this document.The referenced IANA
    registries have been clearly identified.

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.
   
    None.
[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?

  This draft was last called together with other two companion drafts, i.e.,
  draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types and draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews and inputs standard for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 21 people for valuable reviews.
 
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No controversy.
 
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.)
 
  Some debates after WGLC on SSH/TLS key generation support, but it reached agreement at last.
 
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)?
    The author of this document reported that there are several implementation of
  of the higher-level drafts.
## 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, but two Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR and two YANG reviews
  has been requested from YANG Doctor Design team.All four reviews have occurred.
 
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.
 
  Two YANG Doctor review have been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
  Two Security review have been carried out by Magnus Nystrom and Sandra L. Murphy
  respectively which can be found in the datatracker as well.

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 PYANG compilation tool in the datatracker shows no errors and warnings in YANG.
  Yes, the YANG module complies with the NMDA architecture.
 
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.

  xml2rfc ietf tool and rfcfold, pyang,yanglint automation tools have been installed
  to validate sections of the final version of the document including example snippets.
  These tools show no errors and warnings in the document.
 
## 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 shepherd reviewed this document in more details during WGLC and after WGLC
  and author of this document has addressed all the comments.
 
  The document shepherd reviewed the document again as part of this
  process and found a few remaining, but minor comments. Addressing these comments require
  another new version.
 
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?

    Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
    YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well followed.
    There is no ndeed for additional review.

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?

    The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed standard.
    It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been implemented. Yes, the 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][8]? 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.

    WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2020-06-02,which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/31l9RngIfzy7IOt6fsxG6fxFLLo/
    The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR related to this document on 2020-06-18,
    which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/RK8iBi2fGmmwsYtZQE7pfPPw6cA/

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 for this document. Therefore the question listed here doesn't
    apply.

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.)

    idnits tool flags no issues and warnings. Everything looks fine after reading
    the content guidelines on author.ietf.org.

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

    None.

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 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.

    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 change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
    imports module defined in I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types and RFC8341 which are
    normative references.

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 shepherd has reviewed IANA considerations section and confirm two new registries
    are correctly specified and consistent with the body of this document.The referenced IANA
    registries have been clearly identified.

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.
   
    None.
[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/