A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling
draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-10

[Ballot comment]
How will new values of schedule-type be defined? What should a client do if it encounters an unknown value? The text implies that there could be more defined in the future, but describes no forward-compatible handling.

In 3.3.4, it's fine to say that this document doesn't prohibit intervals shorter than durations; should this have a note similar to 3.3.3 recommending that users add restrictions if they require that recurrences not overlap?

Several comments in 3.3.4 seem like they apply equally to subsequent sections; a reference to those comments would be useful if they're not going to be repeated, or move them to apply more broadly.

In 3.3.9, is "bumped" a formally defined YANG term? Would "incremented" be better?

With regard to the leap second discussion, shouldn't it be sufficient to specify that :60 is a valid value that MUST be tolerated on receipt and MAY be produced if the implementation represents leap seconds that way?

=== NITS FOLLOW ===

- Abstract, "recurrence related" => "recurrence-related"

- 3.1, "iCalender like" => "iCalendar-like" or "like iCalendar"

- 3.3.2, "no later the end" => "no later than the end"

[Ballot comment]
How will new values of schedule-type be defined? What should a client do if it encounters an unknown value? The text implies that there could be more defined in the future, but describes no forward-compatible handling.

In 3.3.4, it's fine to say that this document doesn't prohibit intervals shorter than durations; should this have a note similar to 3.3.3 recommending that users add restrictions if they require that recurrences not overlap?

Several comments in 3.3.4 seem like they apply equally to subsequent sections; a reference to those comments would be useful if they're not going to be repeated, or move them to apply more broadly.

In 3.3.9, is "bumped" a formally defined YANG term? Would "incremented" be better?

With regard to the leap second discussion, shouldn't it be sufficient to specify that :60 is a valid value that MUST be tolerated on receipt and MAY be produced if the implementation represents leap seconds that way?

=== NITS FOLLOW ===

- Abstract, "recurrence related" => "recurrence-related"

- 3.1, "iCalender like" => "iCalender-like" or "like iCalender"

- 3.3.2, "no later the end" => "no later than the end"

[Ballot discuss]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-08
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/

## Discuss

### S4

*  "The second for date and time values MUST have the value "60" at
    the end of months in which a leap second occurs."

  I think this ties too strongly to an outmoded way of handling leap
  seconds.  It is widely documented by some cloud operators, for example,
  that "leap smearing" can be employed [1, 2].  A scheduler taking time
  from a leap smeared clock would never encode "60" at any time, nor
  should it.

  I think you can retain this MUST if you craft an exemption for schedule
  producers and consumers that have no other way of dealing with leap
  seconds.

  (Separately, I've taken a note to see about crafting some draft that
    might be a useful reference.)

  [1] https://developers.google.com/time/smear
  [2] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/look-before-you-leap-the-coming-leap-second-and-aws/

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-08
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to James Cumming for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Compliant with NMDA ?

AFAIK, RFC 8407 section 3.5 recommends stating in the introduction whether the YANG module complies with NMDA (RFC 8342). As draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis is not yet approved, it seems to me that the previous guidance should be followed.

### WGLC extended to calendaring WG

The shepherd write-up says nothing about the potential extension of the WGLC to calendaring-related WG such as CALEXT or to the calsify@ietf.org mailing list.

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-07. 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 on the IETF XML Registry group located at:

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

a single new namespace will be registered as follows:

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

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

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

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

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-schedule
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-schedule
Prefix: schedule
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 2025-06-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang@ietf.org, james.cumming@nokia.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling'
  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 2025-06-27. 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 defines common types and groupings that are meant to be
  used for scheduling purposes such as event, policy, services, or
  resources based on date and time.  For the sake of better modularity,
  the YANG module includes a set of recurrence related groupings with
  varying levels of representation (i.e., from basic to advanced) to
  accommodate a variety of requirements.  It also defines groupings for
  validating requested schedules and reporting scheduling status.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-05


## 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 working group consensus, however, contributions have been driven by a small number of individuals.
 
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)?
 
  N/A

## 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 module defines groupings that may be used in other areas but does not directly impact work in other areas.

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.
 
  Multiple YANG doctor reviews have taken place.  The authors have incorporated the majority of the feedback.  The only outstanding feedback from the YANG doctor is that the reviewer felt that not defining a default statement in the YANG, whilst refering to a default value in the description of the same statement was confusing.  The authors believe that this providing guideance to implementors where an explicit default statement might be incorrect for a YANG groupings draft and therefore believe that this guideance text should remain.  The working group was consulted on the list and provided no objections.

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]?
 
  Checked with no issues.

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.
 
XML checked with xmllint


## 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

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?
   
    The specific area here is the security considerations section, which accurately reflects the narrow impact this draft has as it is defining YANG groupings.

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?
   
    Proposed Standard reflected in 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.
   
    WG last call IPR call completed.  All authors and contributors responded with no IPR disclosures raised.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=WG%20Last%20Call%20-%20A%20Common%20YANG%20Data%20Model%20for%20Scheduling&gbt=1&index= 

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.
   
    Yes. Less than 5 authors.

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.)
 
    Checked and confirmed with authors that the remaining NITS are harmless/incorrect warnings based on tooling issues.
 
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    No. Referenced correctly.

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.
   
    N/A

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?
   
    N/A

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 IANA section correctly identifies the two IANA registries that need allocations/entries to be updated.

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 draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-05


## 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 working group consensus, however, contributions have been driven by a small number of individuals.
 
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)?
 
  N/A

## 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 module defines groupings that may be used in other areas but does not directly impact work in other areas.

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.
 
  Multiple YANG doctor reviews have taken place.  The authors have incorporated the majority of the feedback.  The only outstanding feedback from the YANG doctor is that the reviewer felt that not defining a default statement in the YANG, whilst refering to a default value in the description of the same statement was confusing.  The authors believe that this providing guideance to implementors where an explicit default statement might be incorrect for a YANG groupings draft and therefore believe that this guideance text should remain.  The working group was consulted on the list and provided no objections.

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]?
 
  Checked with no issues.

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.
 
XML checked with xmllint


## 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

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?
   
    The specific area here is the security considerations section, which accurately reflects the narrow impact this draft has as it is defining YANG groupings.

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?
   
    Proposed Standard reflected in 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.
   
    WG last call IPR call completed.  All authors and contributors responded with negative IPR responses.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=WG%20Last%20Call%20-%20A%20Common%20YANG%20Data%20Model%20for%20Scheduling&gbt=1&index= 

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.
   
    Yes. Less than 5 authors.

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.)
 
    Checked and confirmed with authors that the remaining NITS are harmless/incorrect warnings based on tooling issues.
 
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    No. Referenced correctly.

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.
   
    N/A

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?
   
    N/A

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 IANA section correctly identifies the two IANA registries that need allocations/entries to be updated.

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 draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-05


## 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 working group consensus, however, contributions have been driven by a small number of individuals.
 
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)?
 
  N/A

## 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 module defines groupings that may be used in other areas but does not directly impact work in other areas.

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.
 
  Multiple YANG doctor reviews have taken place.  The authors have incorporated the majority of the feedback.  The only outstanding feedback from the YANG doctor is that the reviewer felt that not defining a default statement in the YANG, whilst refering to a default value in the description of the same statement was confusing.  The authors believe that this providing guideance to implementors where an explicit default statement might be incorrect for a YANG groupings draft and therefore believe that this guideance text should remain.  The working group was consulted on the list and provided no objections.

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]?
 
  Checked with no issues.

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.
 
XML checked with xmllint


## 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

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?
   
    The specific area here is the security considerations section, which accurately reflects the narrow impact this draft has as it is defining YANG groupings.

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?
   
    Proposed Standard reflected in 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.
   
    WG last call IPR call completed.  All authors and contributors responded with negative IPR responses.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=WG%20Last%20Call%20-%20A%20Common%20YANG%20Data%20Model%20for%20Scheduling&gbt=1&index= 

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.
   
    Yes. Less than 5 authors.

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.)
 
    Checked and confirmed with authors that the remaining NITS are harmless/incorrect warnings based on tooling issues.
 
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
    No. Referenced correctly.

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.
   
    N/A

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?
   
    N/A

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 IANA section correctly identifies the two IANA registries that need allocations/entries to be updated.

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/