YANG Semantic Versioning
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-25

Currently waiting on a response to the OPSDIR review.

It was agreed (between the authors and the AD) to send the cluster of three documents, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-filename, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning, and this draft together for IESG review. This is the only document that is left to clear its last hurdle.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver-24. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the ns registry in the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

ID: yang:ietf-yang-library-semver
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library-semver
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 will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: ietf-etc
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-library-semver
Prefix: yl-semver
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.

Third, section 12.2 of the current draft provides guidance to IANA regarding future registrations of YANG module and submodules. IANA understands that the guidance will also apply to the Expert Review process as defined in [RFC8126]. IANA further understands that the requirement of section 12.2 will apply when new YANG modules are registered and when revisions to existing modules are created.

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 2026-03-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver@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:  (YANG Semantic Versioning) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'YANG Semantic Versioning'
  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 2026-03-03. 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 specifies a YANG extension along with guidelines for
  applying an extended set of semantic versioning rules to revisions of
  YANG artifacts (e.g., modules and packages).  Additionally, this
  document defines a YANG extension for controlling module imports
  based on these modified semantic versioning rules.

  This document updates RFCs 7950, 8407bis, and 8525.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver/



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?

It represents somewhat rough consensus of the WG.  With strong support from
some, general support from others and a few objections from those that, have
strong history with the WG, have only periodically been involved with the
development of the overall versioning solution (which this document is part of).

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

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/UES0rDg6K12zbqCNhgns8GT3V_0/
for a sense of the objections.  The overall consensus of WG is to proceed,
noting that there are some in the rough.

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 ID represents a change in YANG module naming for future versions.

## Additional Reviews

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

This document could impact any future YANG module, but is not technology
specific, and it was felt that the general area reviews would be sufficient.

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.

An earlier version of the document.  A rereview has been requested, but is not expected to yield results that haven't already been discussed in the earlier review and on list.

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?

The listed warning is from an included YANG module.

  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.

A general reread of the module by the shepherd as well as checks via datatracker listed yang validation..


## 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?

Yes.

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?

[6] was reviewed no specific issues identified.

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?

Standards Track as it updates a Standards track document.

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?

yes, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/EMpkuW_Rwmgg2nAZ-GP1RPen5s8/

    If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

NA

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
Yes

  If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, this document has more than five authors. This document represents a large amount of work over years. Each of the listed authors has contributed individually and significantly to the work product. The list of authors has been reduced and limited to those who materially contributed to the document in its current form. All of current authors remain active in related work and will be responsive to the RFC editor process.


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.)

There is one warning 'MUST not --> MUST NOT' that should be fixed in the next revision or by the RFC editor.

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

I don't think 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?
No

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.
No.

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?

No

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

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA consideration are appropriate and consistent with the document and existing RFCs.

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://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/

Waiting on shepherd's report to be updated to change the response to question #13 in the report, and add a justification for why there are more than five authors in the draft.

# 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?

It represents somewhat rough consensus of the WG.  With strong support from
some, general support from others and a few objections from those that, have
strong history with the WG, have only periodically been involved with the
development of the overall versioning solution (which this document is part of).

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

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/UES0rDg6K12zbqCNhgns8GT3V_0/
for a sense of the objections.  The overall consensus of WG is to proceed,
noting that there are some in the rough.

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 ID represents a change in YANG module naming for future versions.

## Additional Reviews

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

This document could impact any future YANG module, but is not technology
specific, and it was felt that the general area reviews would be sufficient.

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.

An earlier version of the document.  A rereview has been requested, but is not expected to yield results that haven't already been discussed in the earlier review and on list.

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?

The listed warning is from an included YANG module.

  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.

A general reread of the module by the shepherd as well as checks via datatracker listed yang validation..


## 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?

Yes.

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?

[6] was reviewed no specific issues identified.

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?

Standards Track as it updates a Standards track document.

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?

yes, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/EMpkuW_Rwmgg2nAZ-GP1RPen5s8/

    If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

NA

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
Yes

  If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

NA

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.)

There is one warning 'MUST not --> MUST NOT' that should be fixed in the next revision or by the RFC editor.

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

I don't think 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?
No

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.
No.

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?

No

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

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA consideration are appropriate and consistent with the document and existing RFCs.

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://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?

It represents somewhat rough consensus of the WG.  With strong support from
some, general support from others and a few objections from those that, have
strong history with the WG, have only periodically been involved with the
development of the overall versioning solution (which this document is part of).

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

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/UES0rDg6K12zbqCNhgns8GT3V_0/
for a sense of the objections.  The overall consensus of WG is to proceed,
noting that there are some in the rough.

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 ID represents a change in YANG module naming for future versions.

## Additional Reviews

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

This document could impact any future YANG module, but is not technology
specific, and it was felt that the general area reviews would be sufficient.

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.

An earlier version of the document.  A rereview has been requested, but is not expected to yield results that haven't already been discussed in the earlier review and on list.

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?

The listed warning is from an included YANG module.

  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.

A general reread of the module by the shepherd as well as checks via datatracker listed yang validation..


## 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?

Yes.

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?

[6] was reviewed no specific issues identified.

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?

Standards Track as it updates a Standards track document.

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?

yes, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/EMpkuW_Rwmgg2nAZ-GP1RPen5s8/

    If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

NA

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such?
Yes

  If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

NA

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.)

There is one warning 'MUST not --> MUST NOT' that should be fixed in the next revision or by the RFC editor.

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

I don't think 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?
No

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.
No.

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?

No

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

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA consideration are appropriate and consistent with the document and existing RFCs.

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://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/

IPR Call update:
waiting on
        Author:  Balazs Lengyel

responded:
        Author:  Joe Clarke
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/R0ewHUcGB0E0hxD-d-8tJzU9hVw/
        Author:  Robert Wilton
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9Vrj6ZorAp1q-Qpj-8NQgP5zFm8/
        Author:  Reshad Rahman
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/oV59ZjKJmNyh1chq9WkkCxGeZX4/
        Author:  Jason Sterne
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/G189nnrBs4prcFhe4T5c_6otkFo/
        Author:  Benoit Claise
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/WMc05UH2PRQazNLna1T0ZiNp98g/

IPR Call Started:

        Author:  Joe Clarke
        Author:  Robert Wilton
        Author:  Reshad Rahman
        Author:  Balazs Lengyel
        Author:  Jason Sterne
        Author:  Benoit Claise

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ItJnvFxvHV6jJYZS5jjh1NB73Fo/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Lengyel , Benoit Claise , Jason Sterne , Joe Clarke , Kevin D'Souza , Reshad Rahman , Robert Wilton