PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast
draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp and RFC 9798, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 3.2. 
3.2.  Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute

  The definition of the "Receiver RLOC" field of the Receiver ETR RLOC
  attribute RFC 8059 [RFC8059] is updated as follows:

  Receiver RLOC:
    The Receiver RLOC field of the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a
    multicast IP address.  This field MUST only be used when the
    underlay network of the LISP core supports IP Multicast transport.

I may be misunderstanding where to apply to “update”.  Is it Section 5.1 of RFC8059?  Is the intent

OLD (RFC8059 text)
  Receiver RLOC:  The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receiver the unicast-encapsulated flow.

NEW (per this document)
  Receiver RLOC:
    The Receiver RLOC field of the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a
    multicast IP address.  This field MUST only be used when the
    underlay network of the LISP core supports IP Multicast transport.

If that’s the case, hasn’t critical text been lost about the RLOC address being a unicast-encapsulated flow?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have just a few comments. Only the second point is consequential, the others are stylistic.

- Section 2.2 para 2 "boxes" seems informal in a way inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the document.

- In Section 3.2 you say the Receiver RLOC field is "updated as follows". I think you must mean that you add the text you supply to the existing definition. As written, the most obvious interpretation would be a replacement, but that seems wrong. So maybe s/updated as follows/updated by appending the following text to the existing definition/. Even better (IMO) would be the clunky but unambiguous OLD/NEW construct, as in

```
OLD:
  Receiver RLOC:  The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.

NEW:
  Receiver RLOC:  The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.  The Receiver RLOC field of
      the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a multicast IP address. 
      This field MUST only be used when the underlay network of the LISP
      core supports IP Multicast transport.
```

Although now that I look at it written out like that, that doesn't hang together either. Please give a think to making this section so precise that even a quite uninformed engineer (such as myself :-) can read the two documents and know exactly what they're supposed to do, without having to exercise creativity. Maybe a start at that would be something along the lines of "... RFC 8059 is updated by permitting it to contain a multicast address when the RLOC is to be used to receive multicast traffic. For such RLOCs, the field is defined as follows:"

- In the same section, "source IP of the PIM Join/Prune" should be "source IP address of the PIM Join/Prune".

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. I have just a few comments. Only the second point is consequential, the others are stylistic.

- Section 2.2 para 2 "boxes" seems informal in a way inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the document.

- In Section 3.2 you say the Receiver RLOC field is "updated as follows". I think you must mean that you add the text you supply to the existing definition. As written, the most obvious interpretation would be a replacement, but that seems wrong. So maybe s/updated as follows/updated by appending the following text to the existing definition/. Even better (IMO) would be the clunky but unambiguous OLD/NEW construct, as in

```
OLD:
  Receiver RLOC:  The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.

NEW:
  Receiver RLOC:  The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to
      receive the unicast-encapsulated flow.  The Receiver RLOC field of
      the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a multicast IP address. 
      This field MUST only be used when the underlay network of the LISP
      core supports IP Multicast transport.
```

Although now that I look at it written out like that, that doesn't hang together either. Please give a think to making this section so precise that even a quite uninformed engineer (such as myself :-) can read the two documents and know exactly what they're supposed to do. Maybe a start at that would be something along the lines of "... RFC 8059 is updated by permitting it to contain a multicast address when the RLOC is to be used to receive multicast traffic. For such RLOCs, the field is defined as follows:"

- In the same section, "source IP of the PIM Join/Prune" should be "source IP address of the PIM Join/Prune".

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

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 2024-10-01):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mmcbride7@gmail.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP
Environments using Underlay
  Multicast'
  as Experimental RFC

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 2024-10-01. 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 an update to the PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune
  attribute that supports the construction of multicast distribution
  trees where the source and receivers are located in different
  Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) sites and are connected using
  underlay IP Multicast.  This attribute allows the receiver site to
  signal the underlay multicast group to the control plane of the root
  Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR).  This document updates RFC 8059.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The pim wg has broad agreement to support this draft. The lisp wg was also included in the wglc and also showed support.

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

No controversies and no opposition.

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 appeals or discontent.

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)?

Authors have implemented this draft in one of the Cisco NOS (IOS-XE).

## 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.

Yes. The lisp wg was also involved in reviewing this draft and in the wglc. They support it as well.

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.

N/A.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document has been properly vetted by both the pim and lisp wg's and it's ready.

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?

All issues addressed and no further reviews needed.

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?

Experimental.

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.

Yes. Authors report no IPR.

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.

Only two authors and they are willing to be listed as such.

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.)

Looks good.

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

Nope. The scope of the updates proposed to RFC 8059 are limited to the case where the "Transport" field of the Transport Attribute is set to zero (Multicast) only.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

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.

Nope.

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?

Nope.

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.

Nope.

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]).

No new requests to IANA

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

N/A

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The pim wg has broad agreement to support this draft. The lisp wg was also included in the wglc and also showed support.

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

No controversies and no opposition.

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 appeals or discontent.

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)?

Authors have implemented this draft in one of the Cisco NOS (IOS-XE).

## 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.

Yes. The lisp wg was also involved in reviewing this draft and in the wglc. They support it as well.

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.

N/A.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document has been properly vetted by both the pim and lisp wg's and it's ready.

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?

All issues addressed and no further reviews needed.

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?

Experimental.

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.

Yes. Authors report no IPR.

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.

Only two authors and they are willing to be listed as such.

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.)

Looks good.

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

Nope. The scope of the updates proposed to RFC 8059 are limited to the case where the "Transport" field of the Transport Attribute is set to zero (Multicast) only.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

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.

Nope.

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?

Nope.

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.

Nope.

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]).

No new requests to IANA

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

N/A

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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The pim wg has broad agreement to support this draft. The lisp wg was also included in the wglc and also showed support.

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

No controversies.

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 appeals or discontent.

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)?

TBD

## 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.

Yes. The lisp wg was also involved in reviewing this draft and in the wglc. They support it as well.

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.

N/A.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, this document has been properly vetted by both the pim and lisp wg's and it's ready.

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?

All issues addressed and no further reviews needed.

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?

Experimental.

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.

Yes.

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.

Only two authors and they are willing to be listed as such.

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.)

Looks good.

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

Nope.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

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.

Nope.

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?

Nope.

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.

Nope.

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]).

No new requests to IANA

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

N/A

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