Skip to main content

YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-05-29
13 Joe Clarke
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## 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 document has 5 co-authors and 5 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus.

The WG last call on the set of documents dealing with the attachment circuits work was launched to both OPSAWG and TEAS mailing lists. Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (one of them being authors/contributors), all providing possitive feedback.

There was no objection to publication.


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

No.

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)?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported.

## 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 attachment circuit work is cross-referenced by some external standardizaiton bodies, such as 3GPP (3GPP TS 28.541 Rel 18.5 onwards) and the O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN.WG9.XTRP-MGT.0-R003-v08.00 onwards). Besides that, it is also considered in the effort about slicing in TEAS WG (e.g., draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang). This draft has undergone RTGDIR LC, as well as Yangdoctors early reviews, which declared the draft to be ready (with nits, in the case of the RTGDIR review).

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.

YANGDOCTORS last call review was (for version -03, now in version -12)

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]?

YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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.

None applicable.

## 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. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.

The YANG model defined can be utilized for the provisioning of attachment circuits (ACs) before or during service provisioning (as in the case of IETF Network Slice Service). The document also specifies a service model for managing bearers over which ACs are established.

The document is ready to hand off to the 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?

No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.

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?

This document is the product of the OPSA WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.

The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.


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 WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the OPSAWG mailing list at the time of WG
last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the OPSAWG mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vzKmKar2SsMxHDcr_5t2ApIRMBc/

No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed.

The OPSAWG mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received.


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.

No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.

Number of authors and editors on the front page is 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.)

id-nits reveals some lines (17) with weird spacing.

Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.


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

The distribution seems to be right.

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?

One of the normative references [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac] is in "I-D Exists" status.

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 document makes requests to IANA (two URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688], and two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.

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

No new registries.

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

2024-05-29
13 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-05-29
13 Joe Clarke IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-05-29
13 (System) Changed action holders to Mahesh Jethanandani (IESG state changed)
2024-05-29
13 Joe Clarke Responsible AD changed to Mahesh Jethanandani
2024-05-29
13 Joe Clarke Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-05-29
13 Luis Contreras
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## 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 document has 5 co-authors and 5 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus.

The WG last call on the set of documents dealing with the attachment circuits work was launched to both OPSAWG and TEAS mailing lists. Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (one of them being authors/contributors), all providing possitive feedback.

There was no objection to publication.


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

No.

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)?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported.

## 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 attachment circuit work is cross-referenced by some external standardizaiton bodies, such as 3GPP (3GPP TS 28.541 Rel 18.5 onwards) and the O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN.WG9.XTRP-MGT.0-R003-v08.00 onwards). Besides that, it is also considered in the effort about slicing in TEAS WG (e.g., draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang). This draft has undergone RTGDIR LC, as well as Yangdoctors early reviews, which declared the draft to be ready (with nits, in the case of the RTGDIR review).

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.

YANGDOCTORS last call review was (for version -03, now in version -12)

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]?

YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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.

None applicable.

## 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. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.

The YANG model defined can be utilized for the provisioning of attachment circuits (ACs) before or during service provisioning (as in the case of IETF Network Slice Service). The document also specifies a service model for managing bearers over which ACs are established.

The document is ready to hand off to the 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?

No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.

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?

This document is the product of the OPSA WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.

The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.


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 WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the OPSAWG mailing list at the time of WG
last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the OPSAWG mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vzKmKar2SsMxHDcr_5t2ApIRMBc/

No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed.

The OPSAWG mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received.


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.

No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.

Number of authors and editors on the front page is 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.)

id-nits reveals some lines (17) with weird spacing.

Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.


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

The distribution seems to be right.

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?

One of the normative references [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac] is in "I-D Exists" status.

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 document makes requests to IANA (two URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688], and two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.

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

No new registries.

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

2024-05-29
13 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-13.txt
2024-05-29
13 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-05-29
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-05-29
13 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-05-27
12 Luis Contreras
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

## 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 document has 5 co-authors and 5 additional contributors. It represents a significant percentage of the active members of the working group. That makes for broad consensus.

The WG last call on the set of documents dealing with the attachment circuits work was launched to both OPSAWG and TEAS mailing lists. Few WG members responded expressing support to last call (one of them being authors/contributors), all providing possitive feedback.

There was no objection to publication.


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

No.

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)?

The document describes a YANG data model. No specific implementations have been reported.

## 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 attachment circuit work is cross-referenced by some external standardizaiton bodies, such as 3GPP (3GPP TS 28.541 Rel 18.5 onwards) and the O-RAN Alliance (O-RAN.WG9.XTRP-MGT.0-R003-v08.00 onwards). Besides that, it is also considered in the effort about slicing in TEAS WG (e.g., draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang). This draft has undergone RTGDIR LC, as well as Yangdoctors early reviews, which declared the draft to be ready (with nits, in the case of the RTGDIR review).

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.

YANGDOCTORS last call review was (for version -03, now in version -12)

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]?

YANG validation performed with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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.

None applicable.

## 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. The document is clearly written, complete, and well structured.

The YANG model defined can be utilized for the provisioning of attachment circuits (ACs) before or during service provisioning (as in the case of IETF Network Slice Service). The document also specifies a service model for managing bearers over which ACs are established.

The document is ready to hand off to the 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?

No reviews or reviewers have pointed to any open issues that need attention.

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?

This document is the product of the OPSA WG and is presented for publication as an Proposed Standard RFC. This is appropriate for a YANG data model.

The status is properly indicated on the title page and in the Datatracker.


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 WG chairs requested an IPR response from all authors and contributors in an email to the OPSAWG mailing list at the time of WG
last call. Responses from all of the authors can be seen on the OPSAWG mailing list at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vzKmKar2SsMxHDcr_5t2ApIRMBc/

No IPR has been disclosed, and all respondents declared no IP needed to be disclosed.

The OPSAWG mailing list was also invited to disclose any IPR at the same time, but no responses were received.


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.

No explicitely. Authors and contributors have been listed there for a long time, and their silence may be assumed to be consent. Note also that the IPR poll has made all authors and contributors aware of their status on the document, at both stages, document adoption and last call.

Number of authors and editors on the front page is 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.)

id-nits reveals some lines (17) with weird spacing.

Manual check of guidance for documents reveals no issues.


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

The distribution seems to be right. I have doubts about IEEE references ([IEEE802.1AB] and [IEEE802.1AX]). In case of being considered normative, they should be moved from informative to normative.

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, except for teh IEEE references mentioned above if they area ctually normative.

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?

One of the normative references [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac] is in "I-D Exists" status.

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 document makes requests to IANA (two URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688], and two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]). The requests seem to be appropriate.

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

No new registries.

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

2024-05-15
12 Joe Clarke Waiting for shepherd write-up so all AC documents can move forward together.
2024-05-15
12 Joe Clarke IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2024-05-14
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-12.txt
2024-05-14
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-05-14
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-05-14
12 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-05-11
11 Donald Eastlake Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2024-04-21
11 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2024-04-19
11 Joe Clarke Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2024-04-19
11 Joe Clarke Notification list changed to luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-04-19
11 Joe Clarke Document shepherd changed to Luis M. Contreras
2024-04-19
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-11.txt
2024-04-19
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-04-19
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-04-19
11 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-04-12
10 Joe Clarke Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-04-12
10 Joe Clarke Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-04-11
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-10.txt
2024-04-11
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-04-11
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-04-11
10 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-04-04
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-09.txt
2024-04-04
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-04-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-04-04
09 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-03-16
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-08.txt
2024-03-16
08 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-03-16
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-03-16
08 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-03-08
07 Donald Eastlake Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-08
07 Donald Eastlake Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2024-03-04
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-07.txt
2024-03-04
07 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-03-04
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-03-04
07 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-02-20
06 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2024-02-16
06 Tianran Zhou Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-02-09
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-06.txt
2024-02-09
06 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-02-09
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-02-09
06 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-01-22
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-05.txt
2024-01-22
05 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-01-22
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-01-22
05 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-01-14
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-04.txt
2024-01-14
04 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2024-01-14
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2024-01-14
04 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2024-01-10
03 Ebben Aries Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Ebben Aries. Sent review to list.
2023-12-18
03 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Ebben Aries
2023-12-14
03 Tianran Zhou Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2023-12-01
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-03.txt
2023-12-01
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-12-01
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2023-12-01
03 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-11-27
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-02.txt
2023-11-27
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-11-27
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2023-11-27
02 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-11-06
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-01.txt
2023-11-06
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-11-06
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bo Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Oscar de Dios , Richard Roberts , Samier Barguil
2023-11-06
01 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2023-11-06
00 Joe Clarke Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/boucadair/attachment-circuit-model
2023-11-06
00 Joe Clarke This document now replaces draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit instead of None
2023-11-06
00 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-00.txt
2023-11-06
00 Joe Clarke WG -00 approved
2023-11-05
00 Mohamed Boucadair Set submitter to "Mohamed Boucadair ", replaces to draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit and sent approval email to group chairs: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org
2023-11-05
00 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision