A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits
draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-14

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-13

# the referenced line numbers are derived from the idnits tool:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-13.txt

# This is a well written document. I have few non-blocking editorial comments

#DETAILED COMMENTS
#=================

18   The document specifies a module that updates existing service (i.e.,
19   the Layer 2 Service Model (L2SM) and the Layer 3 Service Model
20   (L3SM)) and network (i.e., the Layer 2 Network Model (L2NM) and the
21   Layer 3 Network Model (L3NM)) Virtual Private Network (VPN) modules
22   with the required information to bind specific VPN services to
23   attachment circuits (ACs) that are created using the AC service
24   ("ietf-ac-svc") and network ("ietf-ac-ntw") models.

GV> While correct, I did find this abstract not so easy to digest and i saw no correlation with the proposed "AC-glue" model. What about the following alterative. Maybe

"
This document defines a YANG data model, referred to as the “AC-Glue” model, to
augment the LxSM and LxNM with references to Attachment Circuits (ACs). The AC-Glue
model enables a provider to associate configured Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPN services (LxVPN)
with the underlying AC infrastructure, thereby facilitating consistent provisioning and
management of new or existing ACs in conjunction with LxVPN services. By introducing an
integrated approach to AC and LxVPN management, this model supports an Attachment
Circuit-as-a-Service (ACaaS) paradigm and provides a standardized mechanism for
aligning AC requests with the network configurations required to deliver them.
"


166   ac:  Attachment circuit

GV> sometimes the AC is upper case (e.g. AC-glue, etc) and sometimes lower case (i.e. ac-ntw-ref, etc). Is this intetional?

Many thanks again for this document,

Kind Regards,
Gunter Van de Velde,
RTG AD

[Ballot comment]
A few outdated references but other than that no substantive comments:

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of
    draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-14

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of
    draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-18

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of
    draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-21

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
    draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-13

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

a single new YANG module will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bill.wu@huawei.com, draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Data
Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network Models with
  Attachment Circuits'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-12-09. 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


  The document specifies a module that updates existing service (i.e.,
  the Layer 2 Service Model (L2SM) and the Layer 3 Service Model
  (L3SM)) and network (i.e., the Layer 2 Network Model (L2NM) and the
  Layer 3 Network Model (L3NM)) Virtual Private Network (VPN) modules
  with the required information to bind specific VPN services to
  Attachment Circuits (ACs) that are created using the AC service
  ("ietf-ac-svc") and network ("ietf-ac-ntw") models.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
 
  This draft was last called together with other three companion drafts, i.e.,
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit/
  The WGLC started in April 19 and was run for 3 weeks due to cross area collaboration with TEAS WG.
  Note that attachment circuit series drafts had been presented and broadly discussed in both TEAS WG
  and opsawg WG session. In addition, this draft has recieved reviews and inputs from RTWG DIR and YANG
  Doctor. These reviews and inputs on both TEAS WG mailing list and opsawg WG mailing list
  standard for general agreement which helps resolve remaining issues associated with this draft.


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.)
 
  None.

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)?
 
  It was reported some operators have already considered to implement this draft
  for network slicing automation solution. In addition, IETF network slice NBI
  YANG model work in TEAS WG referenced attachment circuit work and discussed usage
  of attachment circuit for IETF network slice service.
  3GPP R18 also referenced attachment circuit draft for 3GPP end to end network slice.
 

## 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.
 
  The contents of this document closely interact with IETF network slicing technology,
  L3SM,L2SM, L3NM, L2NM technologies and therefore it has been presented and broadly
  discussed in both TEAS WG and opsawg WG session. In addition, this draft has been
  referenced by 3GPP R18 for 3GPP end to end network slice and also was brought up
  to draw attention from techincal leaders from both sides during 3GPP and IETF
  coordination meeting. In addition, RTGWG review has been provided
  for this document as well and issues raised by RTGWG review have been addressed.

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.
 
  One YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Martin Björklund which can
  be found in the datatracker.
  Two RTGWG early reviews have been carried out by Gyan Mishra which can be
  found in the datatracker as well. All issues in these reviews have been addressed.

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]?
 
  Based on YANG validation tool in IETF datatracker, 4 warnings are
  flagged out as follows:
  yanglint SO 1.9.2: 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.
  Apparently, the root cause of these warnings comes from ieee802-dot1q-types.yang rather than from ietf-ac-glue@2023-11-13.yang. 

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.
 
  There are six examples written with JSON code in the appendix, By removing line wrapping per RFC8792, I see no validation issues in
  these examples.
 
## 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, this document is well written and provides important component for network slicing
  service delivery and L3VPN, L2VPN service, many other service delivery, which separate
  AC provison from VPN service provision and can grealy accelerate service delivery speed.
  The draft is stable, passes through WGLC, ready to be handed off to the reponsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
       
    Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
    YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well
    followed. There is no ndeed for additional review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
       
    The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed
    standard. It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been
    implemented. Yes, the datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
    intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][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.
       
    WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2024-04-19,which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vzKmKar2SsMxHDcr_5t2ApIRMBc/
    The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR
    related to this document on 2024-04-26, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/bep3iCHGjo7Du7W7lq-VqLTZAI0/

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.
       
    Authors/editors have expressed willingness to be listed as such.
    The total number of authors and editors is less than five.

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.)

    None.
       
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

  None.
       
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
       
  All normative references are freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
       
    None.

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

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
       
    No change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
    imports module defined in rfc8299, rfc466, rfc9182,rfc9291 and
    draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit and draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit
    which are normative references.

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

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
       
    None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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?
 
  This draft was last called together with other three companion drafts, i.e.,
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit/
  The WGLC started in April 19 and was run for 3 weeks due to cross area collaboration with TEAS WG.
  Note that attachment circuit series drafts had been presented and broadly discussed in both TEAS WG
  and opsawg WG session. In addition, this draft has recieved reviews and inputs from RTWG DIR and YANG
  Doctor. These reviews and inputs on both TEAS WG mailing list and opsawg WG mailing list
  standard for general agreement which helps resolve remaining issues associated with this draft.


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.)
 
  None.

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)?
 
  It was reported some operators have already considered to implement this draft
  for network slicing automation solution. In addition, IETF network slice NBI
  YANG model work in TEAS WG referenced attachment circuit work and discussed usage
  of attachment circuit for IETF network slice service.
  3GPP R18 also referenced attachment circuit draft for 3GPP end to end network slice.
 

## 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.
 
  The contents of this document closely interact with IETF network slicing technology,
  L3SM,L2SM, L3NM, L2NM technologies and therefore it has been presented and broadly
  discussed in both TEAS WG and opsawg WG session. In addition, this draft has been
  referenced by 3GPP R18 for 3GPP end to end network slice and also was brought up
  to draw attention from techincal leaders from both sides during 3GPP and IETF
  coordination meeting. In addition, RTGWG review has been provided
  for this document as well and issues raised by RTGWG review have been addressed.

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.
 
  One YANG Doctor review has been carried out by Martin Björklund which can
  be found in the datatracker.
  Two RTGWG early reviews have been carried out by Gyan Mishra which can be
  found in the datatracker as well. All issues in these reviews have been addressed.

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]?
 
  Based on YANG validation tool in IETF datatracker, 4 warnings are
  flagged out as follows:
  yanglint SO 1.9.2: 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.
  Apparently, the root cause of these warnings comes from ieee802-dot1q-types.yang rather than from ietf-ac-glue@2023-11-13.yang. 

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.
 
  There are six examples written with JSON code in the appendix, By removing line wrapping per RFC8792, I see no validation issues in
  these examples.
 
## 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, this document is well written and provides important component for network slicing
  service delivery and L3VPN, L2VPN service, many other service delivery, which separate
  AC provison from VPN service provision and can grealy accelerate service delivery speed.
  The draft is stable, passes through WGLC, ready to be handed off to the reponsible AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
       
    Look at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics, I believe
    YANG Guidelines,especially YANG module security guidelines have been well
    followed. There is no ndeed for additional review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
       
    The type of RFC publication being requested on the IETF stream is proposed
    standard. It is appropriate for a YANG model work that has been
    implemented. Yes, the datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
    intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][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.
       
    WG chairs requested authors to confirm conformance with the
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 on 2024-04-19,which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vzKmKar2SsMxHDcr_5t2ApIRMBc/
    The author of this document also confirmed again that there is no IPR
    related to this document on 2024-04-26, which can be found at:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/bep3iCHGjo7Du7W7lq-VqLTZAI0/

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.
       
    Authors/editors have expressed willingness to be listed as such.
    The total number of authors and editors is less than five.

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.)

    None.
       
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

  None.
       
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
       
  All normative references are freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
       
    None.

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

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
       
    No change to any existing RFCs. The YANG model defined in this document just
    imports module defined in rfc8299, rfc466, rfc9182,rfc9291 and
    draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit and draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit
    which are normative references.

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

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
       
    None.

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