A YANG Data Model for a Truststore
draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-28

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yoav Nir for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and part of my COMMENT.

** YANG.  list certificate-bag
            "A bag of certificates.  Each bag of certificates SHOULD
              be for a specific purpose.  For instance, one bag could
              be used to authenticate a specific set of servers, while
              another could be used to authenticate a specific set of
              clients.";

Since normative language is used here, can additional guidance be provided on qualifying “specific purpose”.  For example, can one put different applications for the same server in the same bag?  What is the consequence of incorrectly binning the certificate chains? 
More generally, I’m wondering about the significance of where certificates are binned.  Because of natural language describing the purpose of these bags, I don’t see an obvious, interoperable, general purpose way to automatically parse this structure to know which certificate to use for a server beyond checking subjectAltNames in the certificate against a domain name (which precludes the need to even organize these certificates into bins beyond readability).


** Section 4.3
  None of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are
  considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.  The NACM
  "default-deny-all" extension has not been set for any data nodes
  defined in this module.

Doesn’t read-access to this module provide insight into which other resources/applications/servers this particular server communicates with by virtue of having their end-entity certificates or SSH keys?  Wouldn’t this provide an attacker insight into potential targeting?  or business relationships?

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-23

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/hI2a8vgOBaDljK3k37xmQaUMB0Y).

## Nits

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

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 5
```
placeholder value for binary data has has been base64 encoded. This placeho
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 2.1.3.4, paragraph 5
```
f [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]. Thus the "cert-data" node is a CMS struct
                                  ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

#### Section 2.1.3.4, paragraph 6
```
f [I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types]. Thus the "public-key" node can be one of
                                  ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".

#### Section 2.3, paragraph 32
```
any name, be used for any purpose and etc., subject to constraints imposed b
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
Write the name of the item after "and" or use only "etc".

## Notes

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

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

[Ballot comment]
I support Roman's DISCUSS position.

====

Additional comments from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele:

> A "choice" statement is used to expose the various options. Each option is enabled by a "feature" statement. Additional "case" statements MAY be augmented in if, e.g., there is a need to reference a bag in an alternate location.

Reads a bit awk.

"http://example.com/ns/example-truststore-usage" prefer to see https, same comment regarding `.example` TLD.

> Reference of a public key bag in the truststore inlucding
        the certificate to authenticate the TLS client.
       
spelling.

> Servers that wish to define alternate truststore locations
> SHOULD augment in custom 'case' statements enabling
> references to those alternate truststore locations.
     
What happens to the model, if they do not? (Why not MUST).


> A description for this bag public keys.  The intended purpose for the bag SHOULD be described.

Why not MUST? (or simply remove the normative).

I am surprised to not see any normative guidance regarding thumbprints or "canonical names" for certificates.

[Ballot comment]
I support Roman's DISCUSS position.

====

Additional comments from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele:

> A "choice" statement is used to expose the various options. Each option is enabled by a "feature" statement. Additional "case" statements MAY be augmented in if, e.g., there is a need to reference a bag in an alternate location.

Reads a bit awk.

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

I have only the same comment as for the companion doc:
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. (A ref to the base64 spec should be added when mentioned.)

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 5.1
  In order to satisfy the expectations of a "truststore", it is
  RECOMMENDED that implementations ensure that the truststore contents
  are protected from unauthorized modifications when at rest.

Similar feedback to draft-ietf-netconf-keystore.  If this recommendation is NOT followed how would this expectation be satisfied?  Shouldn't ensuring that the truststore is protected be mandatory?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Yoav Nir for the SECDIR review.

** Clarifying that certificates are actually certificate chains in the node descriptions.
YANG.  typedef central-certificate-ref

      description
        "This typedef defines a reference to a specific certificate
          in a certificate bag in the central truststore. This typedef
          requires that there exist a sibling 'leaf' node called
          'certificate-bag' that SHOULD have the typedef
          'central-certificate-bag-ref'.";

YANG.  list certificate
              description
                "An arbitrary name for this certificate.";

** YANG.  Typo. s/inlucging/including/

** YANG.  list certificate-bag
            "A bag of certificates.  Each bag of certificates SHOULD
              be for a specific purpose.  For instance, one bag could
              be used to authenticate a specific set of servers, while
              another could be used to authenticate a specific set of
              clients.";

Since normative language is used here, can additional guidance be provided on qualifying “specific purpose”.  For example, can one put different applications for the same server in the same bag?  What is the consequence of incorrectly binning the certificate chains? 
More generally, I’m wondering about the significance of where certificates are binned.  Because of natural language describing the purpose of these bags, I don’t see an obvious, interoperable, general purpose way to automatically parse this structure to know which certificate to use for a server beyond checking subjectAltNames in the certificate against a domain name (which precludes the need to even organize these certificates into bins beyond readability).

** Section 3.
  Built-in bags of trust anchors and/or specific trust anchors, that
  are referenced by configuration (e.g., a "leafref"), MUST be present
  in a datastore in order for the datastore to be valid.


  Built-in bags and/or their trust anchors MAY be copied into other
  parts of the configuration but, by doing so, they lose their
  association to the built-in entries and any assurances afforded by
  knowing they are/were built-in.

As with netconf-keystore, I’m having trouble with the guidance for built-in keys, more specifically, the guidance around a data-store.

-- If something is “built-in”, isn’t it by definition in some kind of datastore already.  Are there now multiple data stores?

-- What does “copying” into a different part of the configuration mean?  Aren’t we talking about an XML file?  Does this imply keys are moved from one data-store (the built-in?) to another one (e.g., a OS or application specific one)?

** Section 4.3
  None of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are
  considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.  The NACM
  "default-deny-all" extension has not been set for any data nodes
  defined in this module.

Doesn’t read-access to this module provide insight into which other resources/applications/servers this particular server communicates with by virtue of having their end-entity certificates or SSH keys?  Wouldn’t this provide an attacker insight into potential targeting?  or business relationships?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done for this document.

Suggest to refresh some dates used in examples (2018 is a long time ago).

Should there also be a 'not valid before' date for certificates ?

How can a node know where to send the certificate expiration notifications ? Is it also a pub/sub model ? (I should probably know the answer...)

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors-22. 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-truststore
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore
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-truststore
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-truststore
Prefix: ts
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-trust-anchors@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 Truststore) 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 Truststore'
  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 for configuring bags of
  certificates and bags of public keys that can be referenced by other
  data models for trust.  Notifications are sent when certificates are
  about to expire.




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



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-keystore. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews stand for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 8 people for valuable reviews and one people
  for its substantial input to module supporting raw public keys and PSKs.
 
 
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 built in trust anchors, 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 as follows:
  - draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types
  - draft-ietf-netconf-keystore
  - draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors
 
## 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 one Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctors, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  A YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
 
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 early 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 adddressed in v-19.

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 2020-6-30, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k7XGaUxDiV_A1RYGMrpS3QRhTIk/
    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?

    I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types as normative reference is companion document to
    this work and ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication.

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-keystore. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews stand for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 8 people for valuable reviews and one people
  for its substantial input to module supporting raw public keys and PSKs.
 
 
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 built in trust anchors, 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 as follows:
  - draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types
  - draft-ietf-netconf-keystore
  - draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors
 
## 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 one Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctors, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  A YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
 
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 early 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 adddressed in v-19.

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 2020-6-30, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k7XGaUxDiV_A1RYGMrpS3QRhTIk/
    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?

    I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types as normative reference is companion document to
    this work and ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication.

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-keystore. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews stand for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 8 people for valuable reviews and one people
  for its substantial input to module supporting raw public keys and PSKs.
 
 
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 built in trust anchors, 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 as follows:
  - draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types
  - draft-ietf-netconf-keystore
  - draft-ietf-netconf-trust-anchors
 
## 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 one Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctors, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  A YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
 
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 2020-6-30, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k7XGaUxDiV_A1RYGMrpS3QRhTIk/
    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?

    I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types as normative reference is companion document to
    this work and ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication.

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-keystore. The WGLC
  was extended by one more week and received decent reviews from 4 peoples.
  These reviews stand for broad agreement which greatly helps improve the quality
  of the document and addresses remaining issues associated with this draft.
  This document also acknowledged 8 people for valuable reviews and one people
  for its substantial input to module supporting raw public keys and PSKs.
 
 
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 built in trust anchors, 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 one Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctors, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  A YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
 
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 2020-6-30, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k7XGaUxDiV_A1RYGMrpS3QRhTIk/
    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?

    I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types as normative reference is companion document to
    this work and ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication.

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-keystore. 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 8 people for valuable reviews and one people
  for its substantial input to module supporting raw public keys and PSKs.
 
 
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 built in trust anchors, 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 one Security reviews has been solicited from SECDIR.
 
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctors, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
  A YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Jürgen Schönwälder which can
  be found in the datatracker.
 
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 2020-6-30, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k7XGaUxDiV_A1RYGMrpS3QRhTIk/
    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?

    I-D.ietf-netconf-crypto-types as normative reference is companion document to
    this work and ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication.

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/