TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared Key
draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-13

[Ballot comment]
Hi Russ,

Thanks for the effort put into this specification.

I only reviewed the diff vs RFC8773. 

# I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis should be listed as normative.

# I-D.ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls should be cited as informational given that the only citation is:

CURRENT:
  Another motivation is the use of a public key with a factory-
  provisioned secret value for the initial enrollment of a device in an
  enterprise network [I-D.ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls].

# Nit: for readers convenience, please point to the exact section where this is defined

OLD:
  The Extension structure is defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]; it
  is repeated here for convenience.

NEW:
  The Extension structure is defined in Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]; it
  is repeated here for convenience.

Cheers,
Med

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Brien Weis for their secdir review.

Security Considerations, para 4:  This is a key consideration, thank you for adding it.

Normative References:  I don't see that the mention in the Intro makes draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls normative, but it certainly isn't an issue.

Informative References:  I do think that draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis is normative.  Possibly this has confused various reviewers?

[Ballot comment]
Section 4: "MAY also find it useful" means that the client is permitted, but not required, to find the extension useful. Is that the intended sense? I'd suggest that this is a lowercase "may" or better yet "might".

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document.

The reader would probably welcome explanations about why a PSK may be used with certification authentication (last paragraph of section 5.2); if a PSK is set between a TLS client and a TLS server, then I really wonder what is the added value of certs based authentication on the top (just to show that I do not know TLS 1.3 inside-out).

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for preparing this well-written document. This seems like
it is could be an important document for future designs.

I would have appreciated a little more introductory text to introduce an
External PSK in section 1. The basis of such short text could already exist
in the security considerations, as per comment 1 of the security area review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tls-8773bis-09-secdir-lc-weis-2025-07-28/

If I understand, I think it could be helpful (you will know) to note that
the discussion in the Security Considerations describes requirements in
the main body and does not provide additional security-specific requirements.

NiT
===
/In particular, The/In particular, the/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

In the TLS ExtensionType Values registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/

the existing registration:

Value: 34
Extension Name: tls_cert_with_extern_psk
TLS 1.3: CH, SH
DTLS-Only: N
Recommended: N

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action 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 action 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 2025-07-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-tls-8773bis@ietf.org, jsalowey@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared Key) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates
with an External Pre-Shared
  Key'
  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 2025-07-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows TLS clients
  and servers to authenticate with certificates and provide
  confidentiality based on encryption with a symmetric key from the
  usual key agreement algorithm and an external pre-shared key (PSK).
  This Standards Track RFC (once approved) obsoletes RFC 8773, which
  was an Experimental RFC.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-8773bis/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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

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

## Document History

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

A significant portion of the working group participated in the consensus process for this document.

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

Initially there was concern that the document may impact the security properties of TLS.  The working group chairs used the FATT (Formal analysis triage team) to analyze the document which raised some concerns with security claims around post-quantum and authentication properties. The draft was revised to modify the security claims according to the consensus of the group. 

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)?

Some of the mechanisms in this document are used in a standards track document in the EMU working group, draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08.  There are implementations of this protocol.

## 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 is used by draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08 and it has been reviewed by participants in that work. The emu draft does not rely on parts of the draft that were controversial. 

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.

The document has had review from the TLS FATT.  The summary of this review is here:
https://github.com/tlswg/rfc8773bis/blob/main/fatt-review/IETF%20FATT%20Report%20-%208773bis.pdf

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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?

The document shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This document has had cryptographic review from the FATT. The comments raised have been addressed to the satisfaction of the WG.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is in the standards track which is appropriate because it is a normative reference for other documents in the standards track.

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 authors have been reminded of IPR disclosure obligations.  No IPR is known for this draft.

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

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.)

No Known Nits.

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

References are correctly identified

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

NA

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.

NA

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?

NA

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.

Yes this document will move 8773bis from experimental to standards track

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 document does not make any additional IANA registrations beyond what were made in RFC 8773

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.

NA

[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?

A significant portion of the working group participated in the consensus process for this document.

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

Initially there was concern that the document may impact the security properties of TLS.  The working group chairs used the FATT (Formal analysis triage team) to analyze the document which raised some concerns with security claims around post-quantum and authentication properties. The draft was revised to modify the security claims according to the consensus of the group. 

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)?

Some of the mechanisms in this document are used in a standards track document in the EMU working group, draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08.  There are implementations of this protocol.

## 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 is used by draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08 and it has been reviewed by participants in that work. The emu draft does not rely on parts of the draft that were controversial. 

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.

The document has had review from the TLS FATT.  The summary of this review is here:
https://github.com/tlswg/rfc8773bis/blob/main/fatt-review/IETF%20FATT%20Report%20-%208773bis.pdf

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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?

The document shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This document has had cryptographic review from the FATT. The comments raised have been addressed to the satisfaction of the WG.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is in the standards track which is appropriate because it is a normative reference for other documents in the standards track.

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 authors have been reminded of IPR disclosure obligations.  No IPR is known for this draft.

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

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.)

No Known Nits.

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

References are correctly identified

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

NA

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.

NA

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?

NA

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.

Yes this document will move 8773bis from experimental to standards track

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 document does not make any additional IANA registrations beyond what were made in RFC 8773

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.

NA

[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?

A significant portion of the working group participated in the consensus process for this document.

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

Initially there was concern that the document may impact the security model of TLS.  The working group chairs used the FATT (Formal analysis triage team) to analyze the document which raised some concerns with security claims around post-quantum and authentication properties. The draft was revised to modify the security claims according to the consensus of the group. 

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)?

Some of the mechanisms in this document are used in a standards track document in the EMU working group, draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08.  There are implementations of this protocol.

## 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 is used by draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08 and it has been reviewed by participants in that work. The emu draft does not rely on parts of the draft that were controversial. 

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.

NA

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]?

NA

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.

NA

## 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?

The document shepherd believes the document is ready to be handed off to the AD.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This document has had cryptographic review from the FATT. The comments raised have been addressed to the satisfaction of the WG.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

This document is in the standards track which is appropriate because it is a normative reference for other documents in the standards track.

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.

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.

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.)

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

References are correctly identified

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

NA

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.

NA

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?

NA

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.

YEs this document will move 8773bis from experimental to standards track

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 document does not make any additional IANA registrations beyond what were made in RFC 8773

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.

NA

[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/