Discovery of Oblivious Services via Service Binding Records
draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-07

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config and RFC 9540, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to David Black for the TSVART review.

Like David I haven't find any TSV related issues in this specification. However, section 5 says -

    By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known resource ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".

I would like to know where is this default behavior defined? Unless I have missed it, the OHTTP specification does not define this. In case this is something defined in the current document then I would suggest to use Normative language for this requirement.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to David Black for the TSVART review.

Like David I haven't find any TSV related issues in this specification. However, section 5 says -

    By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known resource ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".

I would like to know where is this default behavior defined? Unless I have missed it the OHTTP specification does not define this. In case this is something defined in the current document then I would suggest to use Normative language for this requirement.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jt6viRvUbQrX-DnVQkJL328ccco).

## 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]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S4.1

* It seems a (small) waste that if "ohttp" is in the mandatory parameter
  it also appears in the parameter list.  But... shrug, I guess.

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

Many thanks to Christian Amsüss for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/mn_I-CQwqVJ20tWFchpvWrrvvqA/, and to the authors for addressing Christian's comments.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I have one minor level:

(1) p 7, sec 7.  Security and Privacy Considerations

Is another security/privacy consideration here that the target service (since it is collocated with the gateway) potentially has knowledge about whether the request is coming via a OHTTP gateway and hence may offer a different service to those clients connected via the OHTTP gateway vs those clients that are directly connected?  For example, if the target server is a DNS resolver, then perhaps that DNS resolver doesn't resolve requests for some domains when offering service via an oblivious gateway.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

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

Please note that Ralf Weber is the DNS directorate reviewer and you may want to consider this dns-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/reviewrequest/18156/ (and I have read Tommy's reply to Ralf's Last Call review)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS


## Section 1

Should DNR also be mentioned (if applicable) ? Esp as this I-D contains section 4.2.2.

## Section 3

I would expect a direct object in ` it "upgrades"`, i.e., what is upgraded ?

## Section 4.2.2

Suggest to also add examples as in the DDR/HTTP sections above.

## Section 5

I hesitated to raise a DISCUSS level on this one... Should normative language be used in `By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known resource ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".` ? I.e., 'by default' is rather vague.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-06

Thank you for the work put into this document.

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

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

Please note that Ralf Weber is the DNS directorate reviewer and you may want to consider this dns-dir review as well when it will be available (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/reviewrequest/18156/ (and I have read Tommy's reply to Ralf's Last Call review)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS

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

##

# COMMENTS


## Section 1

Should DNR also be mentioned (if applicable) ? Esp as this I-D contains section 4.2.2.

## Section 3

I would expect a direct object in ` it "upgrades"`, i.e., what is upgraded ?

## Section 4.2.2

Suggest to also add examples as in the DDR/HTTP sections above.

## Section 5

I hesitated to raise a DISCUSS level on this one... Should normative language be used in `By default, the gateway for a target is defined as a well-known resource ([WELLKNOWN]) on the target, "/.well-known/ohttp-gateway".` ? I.e., 'by default' is rather vague.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 4.2.1
  If a configuration occurs where the resolver is accessible,
  but cannot use certificate-based validation, the client needs to
  ensure that the relay only accesses the gateway and target using the
  unencrypted resolver's original IP address.

Should this be s/the client needs to ensure/the client MUST ensure/?

** Section 7.2

  Clients SHOULD mitigate such attacks.  This can be done with a check
  for consistency, such as using a mechanism described in [CONSISTENCY]
  to validate the dohpath value with another source.  It can also be
  done by limiting the allowable values of dohpath to a single value,
  such as the commonly used "/dns-query{?dns}".

Is it possible to describe the circumstances where the client is not interested in mitigating such attacks?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Service Parameter Keys (SvcParamKeys) registry on the DNS Service Bindings (SVCB) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-svcb/

the existing early allocation for:

Number Name Meaning
8 ohttp Denotes that a service operates an Oblivious HTTP target

willl be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Well-Known URIs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

URI Suffix: ohttp-gateway
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Status: permanent
Related Information:
Date registered: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

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. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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 2023-08-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config@ietf.org, ohai-chairs@ietf.org, ohai@ietf.org, shivankaulsahib@gmail.com, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Discovery of Oblivious Services via Service Binding Records) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Oblivious HTTP Application
Intermediation WG (ohai) to consider the following document: - 'Discovery of
Oblivious Services via Service Binding Records'
  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 2023-08-21. 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 parameter that can be included in SVCB and
  HTTPS DNS resource records to denote that a service is accessible
  using Oblivious HTTP, by offering an Oblivious Gateway Resource
  through which to access the target.  This document also defines a
  mechanism to learn the key configuration of the discovered Oblivious
  Gateway Resource.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
The draft reached broad agreement, as ascertained through both IETF session participation and mailing list/GitHub discussion. Quite a few folks [raised issues on GitHub](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/draft-ohai-svcb-config/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed), including the authors of the [main protocol document](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp/),  which were resolved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No real 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)?
 
There is interest in deploying the protocol by [Akamai](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/e3tmoWds-f34tfdO1mEUDJc-2Ms/), [Apple](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/Rj68RPnago25AUWjM6AbVmILT8E/), [Cox](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/K2_ahn95NsJ6p-SuJFgR-DqMS3w/).

## 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.

External formal reviews have not yet taken place, but the participants are active in closely-related WGs such as ADD and DNSOP.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
The ["ohttp" DNS SVCB parameter](https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-svcb/dns-svcb.xhtml) was given an early allocation on request of the draft authors and after confirming with the [Working Group](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/aLwGZKMcuabnvKi4rw1F9TXkiq8/) and our [Area Director](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/PD8_Y06JHfGONLXF7PW3XdQuJFk/).

The document also adds an entry to the "Well-Known" registry in [Section 8.2](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-04#section-8.2). A [request has been made](https://github.com/protocol-registries/well-known-uris/issues/35) to add it to the registry.

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]?
 
N/A

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.

N.A

## 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?
   
This document overlaps most with OPS and SEC areas, and has had review and participation from both communities. It went through Expert Review for the DNS SVCB parameter early registration.

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, because it involves multiple parties (client, gateway) implementing a commonly-understood protocol. Yes, the datatracker reflects that intent.

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.
   
The authors have confirmed that no IPR exists to their knowledge.

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.

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 error reported by the Nits tool: no Security Considerations section is found in the document. This is because the section is called "Security and Privacy Considerations".

Some of the references to Internet-Drafts are out of date (newer draft versions exist). This will be fixed automatically when a new version of the draft is uploaded.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

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?
   
The document contains normative references to the following in-progress documents:

- [[DDR](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-ddr-10)] draft-ietf-add-ddr-10. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[DNR](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-dnr-16)] draft-ietf-add-dnr-16. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[DNS-SVCB](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-08)] draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-08. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[SVCB](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12)] draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[OHTTP](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-08)] draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-08. A late-breaking forward compatibility issue was found when it was in the RFC Editor Queue; it's going through a second WGLC out of an abundance of caution.



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 considerations section looks accurate.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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?
 
The draft reached broad agreement, as ascertained through both IETF session participation and mailing list/GitHub discussion. Quite a few folks [raised issues on GitHub](https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/draft-ohai-svcb-config/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed), including the authors of the [main protocol document](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp/),  which were resolved.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
No real 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)?
 
There is interest in deploying the protocol by [Akamai](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/e3tmoWds-f34tfdO1mEUDJc-2Ms/), [Apple](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/Rj68RPnago25AUWjM6AbVmILT8E/), [Cox](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/K2_ahn95NsJ6p-SuJFgR-DqMS3w/).

## 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.

External formal reviews have not yet taken place, but the participants are active in closely-related WGs such as ADD and DNSOP.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
The ["ohttp" DNS SVCB parameter](https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-svcb/dns-svcb.xhtml) was given an early allocation on request of the draft authors and after confirming with the [Working Group](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/aLwGZKMcuabnvKi4rw1F9TXkiq8/) and our [Area Director](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ohai/PD8_Y06JHfGONLXF7PW3XdQuJFk/).

The document also adds an entry to the "Well-Known" registry in [Section 8.2](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-04#section-8.2). A [request has been made](https://github.com/protocol-registries/well-known-uris/issues/35) to add it to the registry.

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]?
 
N/A

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.

N.A

## 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?
   
This document overlaps most with OPS and SEC areas, and has had review and participation from both communities. It went through Expert Review for the DNS SVCB parameter early registration.

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, because it involves multiple parties (client, gateway) implementing a commonly-understood protocol. Yes, the datatracker reflects that intent.

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.
   
The authors have confirmed that no IPR exists to their knowledge.

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.

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 error reported by the Nits tool: no Security Considerations section is found in the document. This is because the section is called "Security and Privacy Considerations".

Some of the references to Internet-Drafts are out of date (newer draft versions exist). This will be fixed automatically when a new version of the draft is uploaded.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
No.

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?
   
The document contains normative references to the following in-progress documents:

- [[DDR](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-ddr-10)] draft-ietf-add-ddr-10. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[DNR](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-dnr-16)] draft-ietf-add-dnr-16. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[DNS-SVCB](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-08)] draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-08. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[SVCB](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12)] draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-12. Part of [C461 on RFC Editor Queue](https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C461)
- [[OHTTP](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-08)] draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-08. A late-breaking forward compatibility issue was found when it was in the RFC Editor Queue; it's going through a second WGLC out of an abundance of caution.



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 considerations section looks accurate.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/