Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models
draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-17

In addition to adding the change related in-discard-unknown-encaps, please address the several *DIR review comments received. In particular, (and thanks to the reviewers) I see that:

- Sue has provided a GENART review
- Dave Thaler has provided a SECDIR review
- IANA has comments.
- Linda has provided OPSDIR review

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-17. 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 on the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation
Prefix: if-flex
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module names will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module files will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

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

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-10-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Lou Berger , draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Models'
  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 2025-10-23. 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 YANG modules to add support for classifying
  traffic received on interfaces as Ethernet/VLAN framed packets to
  sub-interfaces based on the fields available in the Ethernet/VLAN
  frame headers.  These modules allow configuration of Layer 3 and
  Layer 2 sub-interfaces (e.g. L2VPN attachment circuits) that can
  interoperate with IETF based forwarding protocols; such as IP and
  L3VPN services; or L2VPN services like VPWS, VPLS, and EVPN.  The
  sub-interfaces also interoperate with VLAN tagged traffic originating
  from an IEEE 802.1Q compliant bridge.

  The model differs from an IEEE 802.1Q bridge model in that the
  configuration is interface/sub-interface based as opposed to being
  based on membership of an 802.1Q VLAN bridge.

  The YANG data models in this document conforms to the Network
  Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model/



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?
>

strong concurrence of a few individuals

> 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.)

No.

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

This is YANG Module.  Implementation status is unknown.

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

This is related to Ethernet.  Review was also conducted by multiple
participants of IEEE.


> 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.
>

A YANG Dr review was conducted. While the draft has not seen material
change, an addition review has been requested.

> 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?

Yes.

> 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]?
>

yes.

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

The YANG validation tool was run: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/#

Items found were related to include modules.

>
> ## 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?
>

I consider it ready.

> 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?
>

Nothing additional.

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

Proposed standard.  This is appropriate as it documents a YANG Model.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>
yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Zq5JSxgbKSL1eZEsOF83Iu52Syw/

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

Yes, less than 5 authors.
>
> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>
no meaningful idnits .

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
>
I don't thing so.

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

None.

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

None.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None.

>
> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No changes

>
> 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]).
>

I have reviewed the section an believe it appropriate/correct.

> 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.
>

No experts needed.

> [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
> [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
> [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
> [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
> [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
> [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
> [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
> [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
> [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
> [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
> [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
> [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
> [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
> [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
> [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
> [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
>

> # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
>
> *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
>
> Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
> answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
> and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
> diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
> further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
> and editors to complete these checks.
>
> Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
> to answer all of them.
>
> ## Document History
>
> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>

strong concurrence of a few individuals

> 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.)

No.

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

This is YANG Module.  Implementation status is unknown.

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

This is related to Ethernet.  Review was also conducted by multiple
participants of IEEE.


> 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.
>

A YANG Dr review was conducted. While the draft has not seen material
change, an addition review has been requested.

> 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?

Yes.

> 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]?
>

yes.

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

The YANG validation tool was run: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/#

Items found were related to include modules.

>
> ## 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?
>

I consider it ready.

> 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?
>

Nothing additional.

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

Proposed standard.  This is appropriate as it documents a YANG Model.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>
yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Zq5JSxgbKSL1eZEsOF83Iu52Syw/

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

Yes, less than 5 authors.
>
> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>
no meaningful idnits .

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
>
I don't thing so.

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

None.

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

None.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None.

>
> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No changes

>
> 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]).
>

I have reviewed the section an believe it appropriate/correct.

> 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.
>

No experts needed.

> [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
> [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
> [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
> [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
> [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
> [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
> [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
> [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
> [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
> [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
> [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
> [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
> [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
> [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
> [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
> [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
>

> # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
>
> *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
>
> Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
> answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
> and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
> diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
> further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
> and editors to complete these checks.
>
> Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
> to answer all of them.
>
> ## Document History
>
> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>

strong concurrence of a few individuals

> 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.)

No.

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

This is YANG Module.  Implementation status is unknown.

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

This is related to Ethernet.  Review was also conducted by multiple
participants of IEEE.


> 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.
>

A YANG Dr review was conducted. While the draft has not seen material
change, an addition review has been requested.

> 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?

Yes.

> If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>    the justification for not fixing them at this time?

There are 8 warnings, that are not due to this model. From the authors:

    Both ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation@2025-01-29.yang and ietf-if-vlan-encapsulation@2025-01-29.yang import ieee802-dot1q-types.yang

    In ieee802-dot1q-types.yang there is the following definition (only a snippet), that shows that there is a leaf (that is not explicitly marked as deprecated) inside a deprecated list, and this is the crux of the warning message.

      grouping traffic-class-table-grouping {
description
  "The Traffic Class Table models the operations that can be
  performed on, or can inquire about, the current contents of the
  Traffic Class Table (8.6.6) for a given Port.";
reference
  "12.6.3, 8.6.6 of IEEE Std 802.1Q";
list traffic-class-map {
  key "priority";
  status "deprecated";
  description
    "The priority index into the traffic class table. This list modeled
    the Traffic Class Table incorrectly. available-traffic-class should
    be a single value per port and not a list of all possible
    available-traffic-class. For more information see maintenance issue
    0230. The status of this object is deprecated. It is replaced by
    sibling container traffic-class-table.";
  leaf priority {
    type priority-type;
    description
      "The priority of the traffic class entry.";
    reference
      "8.6.6 of IEEE Std 802.1Q";
  }

    When I run yanglint version 3.7.8 on my system with all the necessary yang extracted from the drafts, I do not see any of the warning shown below.
    So, I don't know if there is an actual real warning or not.  Regardless, the warning is on published yang that is not under the control of the IETF.  So the warnings can not be fixed in the context of the ietf draft, and the ietf draft shouldn't be held-up because of a warning in another SDOs yang.

    Here are the warnings:

    draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model-13.txt:
    xym 0.9.0:
    Extracting 'ietf-if-vlan-encapsulation'
      Removed 0 empty lines
    Extracting 'ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation'
      Removed 0 empty lines


    ietf-if-vlan-encapsulation@2025-01-29.yang:
    pyang 2.6.1: pyang --verbose --ietf -p {libs} {model}:
    # module search path: a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/rfcmod/:/a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/draftmod/:/a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/ianamod/:/a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/catalogmod/:.:/usr/local/share/yang/modules
    # read ietf-if-vlan-encapsulation@2025-01-29.yang (CL)
    # read /usr/local/share/yang/modules/ietf/ietf-interfaces.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/rfcmod/ietf-interfaces@2018-02-20.yang
    # read /usr/local/share/yang/modules/ietf/ietf-yang-types.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/draftmod/ietf-yang-types@2024-10-21.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/rfcmod/iana-if-type.yang
    # read /usr/local/share/yang/modules/iana/iana-if-type.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/ianamod/iana-if-type@2023-01-26.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/catalogmod/ieee802-dot1q-types@2023-10-26.yang
    # read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/catalogmod/ietf-if-extensions@2024-07-31.yang

    yanglint SO 1.10.17: yanglint --verbose -p {tmplib} -p {rfclib} -p {draftlib} -p {ianalib} -p {cataloglib} {model} -i:
    warn: Missing status in deprecated subtree (/ieee802-dot1q-types:{grouping}[traffic-class-table-grouping]/traffic-class-map/priority), inheriting.
    warn: Missing status in deprecated subtree (/ieee802-dot1q-types:{grouping}[traffic-class-table-grouping]/traffic-class-map/available-traffic-class), inheriting.
    warn: Missing status in deprecated subtree (/ieee802-dot1q-types:{grouping}[traffic-class-table-grouping]/traffic-class-map/available-traffic-class/num-traffic-class), inheriting.
    warn: Missing status in deprecated subtree (/ieee802-dot1q-types:{grouping}[traffic-class-table-grouping]/traffic-class-map/available-traffic-class/traffic-class), inheriting.


> Does the YANG module
>    comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>    in [RFC 8342][5]?
>

yes.

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

The YANG validation tool was run: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/#

>
> ## 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?
>

I consider it ready.

> 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?
>

Nothing additional.

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

Proposed standard.  This is appropriate as it documents a YANG Model.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>
yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Zq5JSxgbKSL1eZEsOF83Iu52Syw/

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

Yes, less than 5 authors.
>
> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>
no meaningful idnits .

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
>
I don't thing so.

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

None.

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

None.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None.

>
> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No changes

>
> 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]).
>

I have reviewed the section an believe it appropriate/correct.

> 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.
>

No experts needed.

> [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
> [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
> [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
> [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
> [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
> [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
> [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
> [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
> [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
> [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
> [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
> [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
> [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
> [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
> [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
> [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
>

> # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
>
> *This version is dated 4 July 2022.*
>
> Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
> answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
> and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
> diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
> further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
> and editors to complete these checks.
>
> Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
> to answer all of them.
>
> ## Document History
>
> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
>

strong concurrence of a few individuals

> 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.)

No.

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

This is YANG Module.  Implementation status is unknown.

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

This is related to Ethernet.  Review was also conducted by multiple
participants of IEEE.


> 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.
>

A YANG Dr review was conducted. While the draft has not seen material
change, an addition review has been requested.

> 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]?
>

yes.

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

The YANG validation tool was run: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/#

>
> ## 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?
>

I consider it ready.

> 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?
>

Nothing additional.

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

Proposed standard.  This is appropriate as it documents a YANG Model.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.
>
yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Zq5JSxgbKSL1eZEsOF83Iu52Syw/

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

Yes, less than 5 authors.
>
> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
>
no meaningful idnits .

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
>
I don't thing so.

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

None.

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

None.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None.

>
> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
No changes

>
> 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]).
>

I have reviewed the section an believe it appropriate/correct.

> 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.
>

No experts needed.

> [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
> [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
> [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
> [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
> [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
> [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
> [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
> [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
> [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
> [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
> [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
> [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
> [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
> [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
> [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
> [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
> [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
>
>