Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE
RFC 9357

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9357, changed abstract to 'RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.

This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.', changed pages to 9, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2023-02-01, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA).

## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 7
```
    LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
    numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
    represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state).
    Currently no bits are assigned.  Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero
    on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
```
Should this document give some encoding guidance, e.g., "the LSP Extended Flags
field SHOULD (MUST?) use the minimal amount of space needed to encode the flag
bits"? Otherwise one would be free to have trailing 32-bit values with all flags
zero.

### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
    The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags, to be
    allocated starting from the most significant bit.  The bits of the
    LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents.  This
    document does not define any flags.  Unassigned flags MUST be set to
    zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Implementations
    that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag.
```
What "unassigned flags" are will change as assignments are made, so this text
would require implementations to (closely) track IANA assignments. Did you maybe
mean "flags that an implementation is not supporting" instead?

### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
    Following the model provided in [RFC8786] Section 3.1, we provide the
    following advice for new specifications that define additional flags.
    Each such specification is expected to describe the interaction
    between these new flags and any existing flags.  In particular, new
    specifications are expected to explain how to handle the cases when
    both new and pre-existing flags are set.  They are also expected to
    discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any)
    and their interactions with existing flags.
```
I think you mean "describe the interaction between these new flags and *all
existing assigned* flags". That still leaves the issue of what to do when two
documents simultaneously define new flags; that would need to be caught during
standardization.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
or operation, feature, or state). Currently no bits are assigned. Unassigned
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

See my email about one additional change needed (to complete addressing Lars' DISCUSS) and two additional changes suggested (to complete addressing other reviewers' COMMENTs).

Thanks!

--John

[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/J2jEQIJoyAsZEbtU5IK14E3yROA).

## Discuss

### 2119 terms

This document has some ambiguities that would be clarified by using
RFC2119 terms in a few more places:

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
-    Note that PCEP peers MAY encounter varying lengths of the LSP-
-                          ^^  --------
+    Note that PCEP peers MUST handle varying lengths of the LSP-
+                          ^^^ +++++
```

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 3
```
-    than it currently supports or understands, it will simply ignore the
-                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
+    than it currently supports or understands, it MUST ignore the
+                                                  ^^^^
```

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 4
```
-    than the one supported by the implementation, it will consider the
-                                                    ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^
+    than the one supported by the implementation, it MUST treat the
+                                                    ^^^^ ^^ ^^
```

#### Section 5, paragraph 2
```
-    not understood by an implementation would be ignored.  It is expected
-                                        ^^^^^
+    not understood by an implementation MUST be ignored.  It is expected
+                                        ^^^^
```

[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 7
```
    LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
    numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
    represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state).
    Currently no bits are assigned.  Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero
    on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
```
Should this document give some encoding guidance, e.g., "the LSP Extended Flags
field SHOULD (MUST?) use the minimal amount of space needed to encode the flag
bits"? Otherwise one would be free to have trailing 32-bit values with all flags
zero.

### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
    The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags, to be
    allocated starting from the most significant bit.  The bits of the
    LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents.  This
    document does not define any flags.  Unassigned flags MUST be set to
    zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Implementations
    that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag.
```
What "unassigned flags" are will change as assignments are made, so this text
would require implementations to (closely) track IANA assignments. Did you maybe
mean "flags that an implementation is not supporting" instead?

### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
    Following the model provided in [RFC8786] Section 3.1, we provide the
    following advice for new specifications that define additional flags.
    Each such specification is expected to describe the interaction
    between these new flags and any existing flags.  In particular, new
    specifications are expected to explain how to handle the cases when
    both new and pre-existing flags are set.  They are also expected to
    discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any)
    and their interactions with existing flags.
```
I think you mean "describe the interaction between these new flags and *all
existing assigned* flags". That still leaves the issue of what to do when two
documents simultaneously define new flags; that would need to be caught during
standardization.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 2
```
or operation, feature, or state). Currently no bits are assigned. Unassigned
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document - it seems clear and useful.

Also, much thanks to Bo Wu for the very helpful OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-10-11/), and to the authors for working with them to address it.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Shivan Kaul Sahib for the SECDIR review.

** Section 9.  Perhaps repeat what is already said in Section 4 here (“They are also expected to discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any) and their interactions with existing flags.”):

OLD
  This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP
  Object.

NEW
This document provides for the future addition of flags in the LSP Object.  The documents which will specific these flags must discuss their associate security implications.

[Ballot comment]

In the security considerations it says:

  This document provides for future addition of flags in the LSP
  Object.  No additional security issues are raised in this document
  beyond those that exist in the referenced documents.  Note that the
  [RFC8231] recommends that the stateful PCEP extension are
  authenticated and encrypted using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
  [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in
  [RFC7525].

It feels that it is trying to say "these flags are protected by the TLS recommendation", but it could probably say that a bit more clearly.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07
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).

Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 1

While I am not sure whether the description of the current use of the 12 bits is useful: suggest to replace `Thus, it is required to extend the flag field of the LSP Object for future use.` but ``This document extends the flag field of the LSP Object for other use.` (it should age better)

### Section 3.1

`Length (16 bits): multiple of 4 octets.` is rather confusing... Is this field counting 32-bit words ? I had to read RFC 5440 to understand that the 'value' part is always a multiple of 4 octets. Strongly suggest to say "Length (16 bits): length of the value expressed in octets".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

Authors,

It looks like there are some outstanding comments from OPSDIR and SECDIR LC reviews. Can you have a look, and reply and/or update the draft as appropriate? I note that with respect to the SECDIR review, Dhruv has already proposed some text.

Once that's done I'll send the document for IESG review.

Thanks,

--John

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG
Reference: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

Second, a new registry is to be created called the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field registry.

The new registry will be located on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

The new registry will be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 8126. The registry will contain registrations for bits 0-31. Each registration will have a Bit number, Capability description, and a Reference. There are no initial registrations in the new registry.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

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

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dd@dhruvdhody.com, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag
Extension for Stateful PCE'
  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 2022-10-11. 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


  RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to Path Computation Element
  Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE
  and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.  One of the
  extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field with a
  length of 12 bits.  However, all bits of the Flag field have already
  been assigned in RFC 8231, RFC 8281, RFC 8623 and I-D.ietf-pce-
  binding-label-sid.

  [Note to RFC Editor - Replace I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid to RFC
  XXXX, once the RFC number is assigned.]

  This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the
  LSP object for an extended flag field.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags/



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

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?

Now that all the 12 bits in the flag field of the LSP object [RFC8231] are
already allocated, there is a need to have an extended flag in the form of a
TLV. The response for WGLC was timid mostly because the need for this I-D is
well understood and agreed upon in the WG.

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

There was a discussion on the use of variable length v/s fixed-length (32-bits)
by one WG participant. The discussion and rationale are captured in the
appendix of the I-D.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are various proposals in the WG that require new flags and as those get
traction, this extension would potentially be implemented soon.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The usual directorate reviews are enough. No additional reviews are needed.

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 to all

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standards. This I-D adds a new TLV and thus standards track is
appropriate. The datatracker state is set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

During the WGLC and adoption, the IPR poll was conducted. There are no IPR
against this I-D.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. There is only one author.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No issues found.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

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

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

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 state change of existing RFCs

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][12]).

IANA Considerations section is reviewed and no issues were found.

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

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?

Now that all the 12 bits in the flag field of the LSP object [RFC8231] are
already allocated, there is a need to have an extended flag in the form of a
TLV. The response for WGLC was timid mostly because the need for this I-D is
well understood and agreed upon in the WG.

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

There was a discussion on the use of variable length v/s fixed-length (32-bits)
by one WG participant. The discussion and rationale are captured in the
appendix of the I-D.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are various proposals in the WG that require new flags and as those get
traction, this extension would potentially be implemented soon.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

The usual directorate reviews are enough. No additional reviews are needed.

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 to all

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standards. This I-D adds a new TLV and thus standards track is
appropriate. The datatracker state is set correctly.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

During the WGLC and adoption, the IPR poll was conducted. There are no IPR
against this I-D.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

Yes. There is only one author.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No issues found.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

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

None

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

No

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

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 state change of existing RFCs

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][12]).

IANA Considerations section is reviewed and no issues were found.

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

None

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://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/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html