System-defined Configuration
draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-14

# 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?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

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

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise 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)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## 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.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (NMDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations, and thus only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

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]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

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.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## 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?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

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?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

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?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

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.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

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.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three 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.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

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

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

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

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

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?

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed on the title page, in the abstract,
          and discussed in the introduction.

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]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

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.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[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?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

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

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise 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)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## 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.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (MNDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations.  As such, only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

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]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

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.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## 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?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

          LARGER ISSUES: please fix before this document is sent to the AD!

          Section 7.1: s/ds: conventional/ds:conventional/  (whitespace isn't allowed)
          Section 9: s/date nodes/data nodes/  (hard to spot typo)
          Section A.1: there are two apps with "destination-port" 69  (my-foo should be > 1024)
          Section A.2: s/and adds/by adding/  (better semantics, unknown if Editor would find)

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?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

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?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

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.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

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.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three 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.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

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

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

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

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

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?

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed in the Title and Introduction,
          sections, but it is not listed in the Abstract.

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]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

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.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[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?

Shepherd: strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent.
          Notably, Cisco and Nokia were actively involved.

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

Shepherd: one particular point was somewhat controversial.  This being that the
          current solution is NMDA only, necessitating that clients wanting to
          perform offline-validation must know how to fetch the  datastore
          and merge it with the  datastore.  However, the WG noted that
          trying to support legacy clients made the solution overly complex and
          architecturally unsound.

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.)

Shepherd: No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise 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)?

Shepherd: There is interest in implementing it (including by yours truly), but
          I am unaware of any implementations yet.

## 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.

Shepherd: This document updates YANG infrastructure, much like RFC 8342 (MNDA),
          which this document updates, if approved.  As such, this document does
          not closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or
          external organizations.  As such, only internal reviews are needed.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Shepherd: A YANG Doctors review occurred a year ago.  The YANG module published
          by this document is trivial, adding a single YANG "identity" for a
          new NMDA datastore called "system".  I am a YANG Doctor too.

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]?

Shepherd: The command `pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 FILE`
          produced differences: some valid, some questionable. 

          For the valid issues:
            - each line of the module begins with a SPACE character.
            - it appears that parts of the module use a 3-SPACE tab-stop.
            - the module (on GitHub) has Windows ^M EOL-characters.
            - there is jarring blank line in the revision's description statement.

          For questionable issues:
            - pyang annoyingly removes some helpful blank lines.

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.

Shepherd: both pyang and yanglint parse the module without errors.

## 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?

Shepherd: I just re-read the document.  It is needed, clearly written, complete,
          correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area
          Director. There are a few places where the English could be improved,
          but imagine such easily being caught by RFC Editor. 

          LARGER ISSUES: please fix before this document is sent to the AD!

          Section 7.1: s/ds: conventional/ds:conventional/  (whitespace isn't allowed)
          Section 9: s/date nodes/data nodes/  (hard to spot typo)
          Section A.1: there are two apps with "destination-port" 69  (my-foo should be > 1024)
          Section A.2: s/and adds/by adding/  (better semantics, unknown if Editor would find)

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?

Shepherd: None. No impact to other Areas.

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?

Shepherd: Proposed Standard

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.

Shepherd: Yes. The last IPR poll can be found here:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/IpzWIAbgifXoKaNfLhEDmYbyXkY

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.

Shepherd: Willingness to be listed is implied.  The document has three 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.)

Shepherd: I-D nits shows a crufty references and a crufty date. Reviewing [15],
          nothing else seems wrong.

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

Shepherd: [RFC6241] should be removed from the list there, because I don't see how
          it is true, and then [RFC6241] should moved from Normative to Informative,
          per draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28, Section 3.7, last paragraph. [RFC8040]
          should moved to Informative for the same reason.

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

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: Not that I'm aware of.

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?

Shepherd: There are none.

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.

Shepherd: RFC8342 is updated.  It is listed in the Title and Introduction,
          sections, but it is not listed in the Abstract.

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]).

Shepherd: The IANA Considerations section is complete and accurate.

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.

Shepherd: The are no new IANA registries.

[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/