YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20

[Ballot comment]
Just one minor comment, I cannot parse this sentence:

        For example, a given customer must have access only to its
        bearers/ACs and be discarded access to bearers/ACs of other
        customers.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-19
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/

## Comments

### S5.2.5.2

* Can the allocation-type "slaac" be used in here as well?  It explicitly
  called out in another doc, but not mentioned here.

## Nits

### S1.1

* "or even the nature or the services" ->
  "or even the nature of the services"?

### S4.3

* "with a focus the provider" ->
  "with a focus on the provider"?

### S5.2

* "only for test and not for setting," ->
  "only for test and not for service," or something?

[Ballot comment]
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-19

# 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-teas-attachment-circuit-19.txt

# This is a well written document. I have a non-blocking editorial observation:

The text uses lower and upper case AC vs ac inside the model (in descriptions). For consistency maybe align the representation to either all upper case or all lower case:

4854           "description": "a first ac with a same peer node",
versus
3632             bandwidth of the AC or download bandwidth from the

Note that the uppercase AC seems to be the most dominant within the document.

G/

[Ballot comment]

Thanks to Tero for his secdir reviews. 

It is my opinion that the security consideration template needs work, the language is unclear at best.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-19
CC @evyncke

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 Luis Contreras for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if the justification of the intended status is rather light.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

Thanks for the use of SVG graphics, it makes reading much easier in the HTML rendering.

### One or two models ?

When reading the abstract and section 1, it is unclear whether this I-D is about 1 or 2 data models ? It seems that the 2 modules build one service data model...

### Section 1.1

`This document specifies a YANG service data model ("ietf-ac-svc")` I think that "ietf-ac-svc" is a *module* and not a *model*. Of course in this case, the model includes only one module but let's try to be correct ;) The "ietf-bearer-svc" is also a module as it is written later in the section.

The text is mainly about how to add a new AC but not how to modify or to delete it. Should there be some text about the lifecycle of an AC ?

### Section 1.2

`The AC model specified in this document is` but this document is about *two* models... so this sentence should probably in the plural form or be restrictive to "AC service model".

The section title should probably be "Positioning ACaaS model vs. Other Data Models"

### Section 4.1

Should there be a "b4" in figure 1 ?

### Section 5

The apparent confusion between model and module happens again, the section 5 title is about data models but the sub-section titles are about YANG modules.

### Section 5.1

How can a location address be changed if the location is "ro" ?

Are all location only by street/city addresses ? Should there be more generic location (especially for mobile) or more details locations (e.g., floor, ...).

Please bear with my lack of knowledge about YANG language, but if there are several AC on the same location, does this mean that the location information will be repeated several times ?

### Section 5.2.1

As the decision has been made, it is perhaps time to revisite the following with a more assertive tone `The rationale for deciding whether a reusable grouping should be maintained in this document or be moved into the AC common module [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac] is as follows`

### Section 5.2.5.1 (and possibly others)

It seems that the tree view repeats the content of imported YANG modules (e.g., ac-common:layer2-ac) grouping, isn't there a risk of incoherency between two future RFC ?

### Appendix A

Reading examples with date in the future made me smile ;-)

And thanks for some dual-stack examples.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

The use of `Layer 2` is hurting my eyes as it should be "layer 2" and in some cases "layer-2"...

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

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

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

two new namespaces will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

two new YANG modules will be registered as follows:

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

Name: ietf-ac-svc
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-svc
Prefix: ac-svc
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: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit@ietf.org, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data
Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service
  (ACaaS)'
  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


  This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment
  Circuits (ACs).  This model can be used for the provisioning of ACs
  before or during service provisioning (e.g., Network Slice Service).
  The document also specifies a service model for managing bearers over
  which ACs are established.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit/



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

# 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/

# 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/

# 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/