A Realization of Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/MPLS Technologies
draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-18

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors and the WG on the work on this document.

Also, thanks for the discussion and the updates to the document to address my comments/concerns.

[Ballot comment]
Due to lack of time, I have not reviewed the document in details and I rely on the internet directorate review by Tim Winters (thank you Tim):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/c9hsJpyEywes_FJRAmO5MjxxmhY/ (I failed to see any reply by the authors though).

I am also sympathetic to Erik Kline's suggestion about also using some IPv6 address bits.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Joe Salowey for his secdir reviews.

Introduction, para 1 and 6:  What does '(per 2025)' mean?  Should this be a reference?  Or is it actually a date reference? If this is a date reference, please consider changing it, as dates like this won't age well.

Section 11, NSC Auth, para 1, last sentence: Please replace with "The YANG-based management protocols have to use a secure transport layer such as SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], or QUIC [RFC9000].  The YANG-based management protocols also have to use mutual authentication."

Section 11, Data Confid, para 1:  Please add 'and other security features.' to the end of the sentence.

Section 11, second to last para:  Either replace 'an attacker from within the transport network' with 'An on-path attacker', or change the last sentence to remove 'such an on-path attacker' with 'such an attacker within the transport network'.  I would also change 'make more damage' to 'inflict more damage'.

[Ballot discuss]
There are a couple of aspects in the document that I would like to discuss:


185   provider networks.  The model uses (1) Layer 2 Virtual Private
186   Network (L2VPN) [RFC4664] and/or Layer 3 Virtual Private Network

Any reason by EVPN was not considered? There are a few other
places where there is reference to L2VPN but not EVPN.

187   (L3VPN) [RFC4364] service instances for logical separation, (2) fine-
188   grained resource control at the Provider Edges (PEs), (3) coarse-
189   grained resource control within the provider network, and (4)
190   capacity planning/management.  More details are provided in Sections
191   3.7, 5, 6, and 7.


1124 4.3.  MPLS Label Hand-off

The document does cover both MPLS and IP/IPv6/SRv6 as two technology
options in the TN in several places. However, I see that SRv6 Hand-off is missing.
I would like to discuss if there were any specific challenges in including that
or if there was any other consideration for that exclusion?

[Ballot comment]
Following are some comments provided in the idnits output for v16 of the document:

112 1.  Introduction

114   This document focuses on network slicing for 5G networks, covering
115   the connectivity between Network Functions (NFs) across multiple
116   domains such as edge clouds, data centers, and the Wide Area Network
117   (WAN).  The document describes a Network Slice realization approach
118   that fulfills 5G slicing requirements by using existing IP/MPLS

By "existing", do you mean "available and widely deployed at the time
of writing this document" ... or something like that? The term "existing" will
not age well in an RFC.


182   Unlike approaches that require new protocol extensions (e.g.,
183   [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]), the realization model described in this
184   document uses a set of building blocks commonly used in service

By "commonly" perhaps you imply ... commonly used in service provider
networks at the time of writing of this document?

185   provider networks.

193   This realization model uses a single Network Resource Partition (NRP)
194   (Section 7.1 of [RFC9543]).  The applicability to multiple NRPs is
195   out of scope.

The document does talk about QoS realization and carving out
resources based on DSCP/EXP. Is the use of QoS classes mapped to NRPs
precluded from to realize multiple (or rather a handful of) NRPs as specified in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls-05.html#section-4.1
?


197   Although this document focuses on 5G, the realizations are not
198   fundamentally constrained by the 5G use case.  The document is not
199   intended to be a BCP and does not claim to specify mandatory
200   mechanisms to realize network slices.  Rather, a key goal of the
201   document is to provide pragmatic implementation approaches by
202   leveraging existing readily-available, widely-deployed techniques.

... at the time of writing of this document.

203   The document is also intended to align the mobile and the IETF
204   perspectives of slicing from a realization perspective.


2651 12.2.  Informative References

There are many references below (e.g., for VPNs) that are required and
necessary for the realization of the solution in this document. I would think
that they would become normative? There are a lot of references and a closer
relook would be helpful.

[Ballot comment]
To the WG: please make the TEAS charter, last updated in 2018, clearer.  At first reading it isn’t clear how this document is in-scope. The explicit text which discusses “architecture” as something that is chartered for delivery says:

    2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol
      requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE
      information between interconnected TE domains/layers.

It isn’t clear how this document exemplifies “abstractions and distributions of TE” as it is specific to 5G despite the statement of “Although this document focuses on 5G, the realizations are not fundamentally constrained by the 5G use case” in Section 1.

An earlier charter section which discusses what TEAS’s responsibility says:
    a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic
      applicability across packet and non-packet
      networks. This includes, for example, networks that
      perform centralized computation and control, distributed
      computation and control, or even a hybrid approach.

This text is more generic providing ambiguous scoping.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-16
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S4.2

* Up to you if you want to include it or not, but an alternative/additional
  option might be use of draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id.

### S5.2.2

* Random, untested thought: it would in theory be possible to put the 5QI
  info in an IPv6 address (a la S4.2), presumably preceding the S-NSSAI.
  In this way, a provider might be able to augment DSCP treatment with
  whatever per-prefix TE might be arranged (where the prefix length covers
  the 5QI byte).

  Just random noise, though; ignore me.

## Nits

### S4

* "following sections list few" ->
  "following sections list a few"

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-01-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Realization of Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/MPLS Technologies) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'A Realization of
Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/MPLS
  Technologies'
  as Informational 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 2025-01-21. 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


  Network slicing is a feature that was introduced by the 3rd
  Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in mobile networks.
  Realization of 5G slicing implies requirements for all mobile
  domains, including the Radio Access Network (RAN), Core Network (CN),
  and Transport Network (TN).

  This document describes a Network Slice realization model for IP/MPLS
  networks with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling 5G slicing
  connectivity service objectives.  The realization model reuses many
  building blocks currently commonly used in service provider networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6238/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6239/

# 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?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

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

There was no controversy. However, there were rough consensus calls made on 
a few items after considerable amount of healthy debate and discussion in the WG.


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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme 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)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. This is an informational 
document that describes a Network Slice realization model for IP/MPLS networks 
with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling 5G slicing connectivity service 
objectives.  The document does not include any implementation report. This 
document is driven (authors/contributors) by multiple vendors/operators and the
realization model described in the document is expected to be implemented in 
some form.


## 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 document covers a broad range of topics including some that are relevant 
to other IETF working groups / areas and 3GPP. The document has undergone 
the following reviews (internal/external to IETF):

INTDIR Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-intdir-early-winters-2024-02-23/

TSVART Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-tsvart-early-nishida-2024-01-07/

RTGDIR Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-rtgdir-early-retana-2024-01-08/

3GPP-TSGSA-SA2 Liaison Respone:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1955/

3GPP-TSG-SA-WG5 Liaision Response:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1956/

O3GPPTSGRAN3 Liaison Response:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1957/


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.

Early review feedback received from INTDIR, TSVART and RTGDIR and liaison responses
from 3GPP-TSGSA-SA2, 3GPP-TSG-SA-WG5 and O3GPPTSGRAN3 have been discussed
on the mailing list and incorporated into the document.

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]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## 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, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

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?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because this document provides a general description of a Network Slice 
realization model for IP/MPLS networks with a focus on the Transport Network 
fulfilling 5G slicing connectivity service objectives. All Datatracker state
attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are two IPR disclosures associated with
this document:
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls). 

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2024-04-11 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/history/ 

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-03-29 and 2023-04-02 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-srld-teas-5g-slicing/history/


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.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

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.)

There are no “errors” or “flaws” generated by the I-D nits tool for this document.
There are a few innocuous miscellaneous warnings (weird spacing) and 
comments generated (by the tool) which can be ignored.

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

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

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

All listed normative references are freely available.

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.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

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?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any 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][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

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.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[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?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

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

There was no controversy. However, there were rough consensus calls made on 
a few items after considerable amount of healthy debate and discussion in the WG.


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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme 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)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. This is an informational 
document that describes a Network Slice realization model for IP/MPLS networks 
with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling 5G slicing connectivity service 
objectives.  The document does not include any implementation report. This 
document is driven (authors/contributors) by multiple vendors/operators and the
realization model described in the document is expected to be implemented in 
some form.


## 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 document covers a broad range of topics including some that are relevant 
to other IETF working groups / areas and 3GPP. The document has undergone 
the following reviews (internal/external to IETF):

INTDIR Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-intdir-early-winters-2024-02-23/

TSVART Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-tsvart-early-nishida-2024-01-07/

RTGDIR Early Review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-02-rtgdir-early-retana-2024-01-08/

3GPP-TSGSA-SA2 Liaison Respone:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1955/

3GPP-TSG-SA-WG5 Liaision Response:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1956/

O3GPPTSGRAN3 Liaison Response:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1957/


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.

Early review feedback received from INTDIR, TSVART and RTGDIR and liaison responses
from 3GPP-TSGSA-SA2, 3GPP-TSG-SA-WG5 and O3GPPTSGRAN3 have been discussed
on the mailing list and incorporated into the document.

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]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

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.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## 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, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well
written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

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?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

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?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because this document provides a general description of a Network Slice 
realization model for IP/MPLS networks with a focus on the Transport Network 
fulfilling 5G slicing connectivity service objectives. All Datatracker state
attributes correctly reflect this intent.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are two IPR disclosures associated with
this document:
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls). 

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2024-04-11 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/history/ 

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2023-03-29 and 2023-04-02 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-srld-teas-5g-slicing/history/


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.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page 
and 7 other contributors listed later in the document.

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.)

There are no “errors” or “flaws” generated by the I-D nits tool for this document.
There are a few innocuous miscellaneous warnings (weird spacing) and 
comments generated (by the tool) which can be ignored.

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

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

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

All listed normative references are freely available.

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.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

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?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

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.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any 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][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

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.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[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/

Pre WGLC IPR Poll Responses: (Poll Thread - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/DtWPXuemOc_TRx4yBwJJQuqru48/)

Krzysztof Szarkowicz
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XEcFT2YsJbONboTY7C4SdQH2_Rs/

Richard Roberts
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/K9l3z9Pam7-JcY5B2sXShQjjU-c/

Julian Lucek
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6ttfT7Z-SLxyNvMNvav85-4ZZ9Y/

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ypEqCOo6A3I_CkMzQAk7_oL3W0w/

LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/wYdZtHeObe6X08bBYa1uOzHh7O0/

je_drake@yahoo.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/KnNwYMvWXnWEtUKFGxdvUFagY7g/

Ivan Bykov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kVPlTKrqXx6b-UCEDcCy5z0mqLc/

"Rokui, Reza"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/o_yJhrC2DNw0konEzYbzImJNrd4/

luay.jalil@verizon.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/iE3hNnUmofGS52ycVKbvSlFWQfk/

benyds@xl.co.id
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/vRrYnzTiVH3Vg0u6bvWBhxkY3Tc/

mojdeh.amani@bt.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jJKQoUVSB7ZWdCM4SaB1yqgJ944/

amitd@arrcus.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/LBPCQVwCrsMBRMoIT4gB0z2_Bng/