Hi Shaowen and Xufeng, This is a reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication.
Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719) for further information and the previous messages in this thread. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 21, 2025, at 11:44 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Yuehua and Bruno, > > Thank you both for your replies. We have noted your approval and incorporated > our edits into the updated files below per Bruno’s guidance. In addition to > our updates, note that we also added <em> tags to italicize term "ThreeWay" > for consistency with RFCs 9692 and 9696. > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.xml > > The updated diffs have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 > > Once we receive approvals from Shaowen and Xufeng, we will move this document > forward in the publication process. > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:04 PM, Bruno Rijsman <brunorijs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear RFC editors, >> >> Thank you very much for your careful review and final edits. >> >> I have carefully reviewed all the changes in the diff, and I agree with them. >> >> I also agree with your suggested changes to fix the comments in items #1 >> through #11 below, and I have read the style guide mentioned in #12. >> >> I approve this RFC for publication. >> >> Also my sincere thanks to the co-authors for their work on this document. >> >> — Bruno Rijsman >> >>> On Jan 16, 2025, at 3:14 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>> >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the abbreviated title (which appears in the >>> running >>> header of the PDF) as follows. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >>> >>> Original: >>> RIFT YANG Model >>> >>> Current: >>> RIFT YANG Data Model >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] The Terminology section (Section 3.1) states that terms and >>> their >>> definitions are copied from RFC 9692. However, we note that definitions >>> in this section contain a mix of sentences directly from RFC 9692, >>> paraphrased sentences from RFC 9692, as well as mirrored definitions >>> missing words throughout. If there are no objections, we will revise the >>> Terminology section in this document to accurately reflect the >>> definitions that appear in RFC 9692. Please let us know any concerns. >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> "TIE" in RFC 9692 (Original): >>> This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element". TIEs are exchanged >>> between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such as links and address >>> prefixes. A TIE has always a direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes >>> abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when dealing with TIEs in the northbound >>> representation and South-TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the >>> southbound equivalent. TIEs have different types such as node and prefix >>> TIEs. >>> >>> "TIE" in this document (Original): >>> "Topology Information Element" are exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe >>> parts of a network such as links and address prefixes. A TIE has always a >>> direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used >>> when dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs >>> (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs have >>> different types such as node and prefix TIEs. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that the following paragraph appears in Sections 2.1 >>> and >>> 2.3. To avoid repetition, may we remove the duplicate text from one >>> section or the other? >>> >>> Original (Sections 2.1 and 2.3): >>> The RIFT YANG module augments the /routing/control-plane-protocols/ >>> control-plane-protocol path defined in the ietf-routing module. This >>> model augments the routing module to add RIFT as a control plane >>> protocol. It then offers the ability to create a list of instances, >>> which it does by declaring 'list rift'. Multiple instances of the >>> protocol are supported by the module by giving each instance a unique >>> name. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we corrected 'sourth' to 'south' (3 instances). >>> >>> From the original: >>> 465: | | +-ro total-num-routes-sourth? >>> 2418: leaf total-num-routes-sourth { >>> 2422: "The total number of sourth routes."; >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.3.9 of RFC 9692 is titled >>> "Northbound >>> TIE Flooding Reduction". May we rephrase as follows? >>> >>> Original: >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocol, such as BFD >>> [RFC5881], flooding-reducing section 6.3.9 [I-D.ietf-rift-rift]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocols, such as BFD [RFC5881], >>> with flooding reduction (Section 6.3.9 of [RFC9692]). >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for clarity? >>> >>> Original: >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor's layer error should be notified. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor layer errors should be notified. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the YANG >>> Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred. >>> We have updated the title of Section 3 accordingly. Please review >>> usage of "YANG model" within this document. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the YANG module, please clarify "system id using pattern" >>> in the description of system-id. (In text as "System ID" to match >>> RFC-to-be 9692.) >>> >>> Original: >>> description >>> "This type defines RIFT system id using pattern, >>> the system id looks like: 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10"; >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> description >>> "This type defines the pattern for RIFT System IDs. >>> An example of a System ID is 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10."; >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please note that the YANG module has been updated per >>> the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!--[rfced] Section 4. The text has been updated to exactly >>> match the template for YANG module security considerations >>> (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines). Please review. >>> If additional changes are needed, please let us know. Specifically, >>> the following text was updated. >>> >>> Original (paragraph 3): >>> Writable data node represent configuration of each instance, node, >>> interface, etc. These correspond to the following schema node: >>> >>> Current: >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ >>> vulnerability: >>> >>> However, should it be updated to singular because one item is listed? >>> Perhaps: >>> This is the schema node and its sensitivity/vulnerability: >>> >>> >>> Original (paragraph 11): >>> Specifically, the >>> following operations have particular sensitivities/ vulnerabilities: >>> >>> Current: >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ >>> vulnerability: >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence; the original does not parse. >>> >>> Original: >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for >>> the neighbor connection broken, will lead to the permanent connection >>> broken. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for >>> the broken neighbor connection, will break the connection >>> permanently. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>> online >>> Style Guide >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let >>> us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that >>> our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be >>> reviewed as a best practice. --> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor/mc/ar >>> >>> >>> On Jan 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/01/15 >>> >>> RFC Author(s): >>> -------------- >>> >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>> >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>> >>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >>> your approval. >>> >>> Planning your review >>> --------------------- >>> >>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>> >>> * RFC Editor questions >>> >>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >>> follows: >>> >>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>> >>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>> >>> * Changes submitted by coauthors >>> >>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >>> >>> * Content >>> >>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >>> change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: >>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>> - contact information >>> - references >>> >>> * Copyright notices and legends >>> >>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >>> >>> * Semantic markup >>> >>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >>> >>> * Formatted output >>> >>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>> >>> >>> Submitting changes >>> ------------------ >>> >>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >>> include: >>> >>> * your coauthors >>> >>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>> >>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>> >>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >>> list: >>> >>> * More info: >>> >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >>> >>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >>> >>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>> >>> An update to the provided XML file >>> — OR — >>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>> >>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>> >>> OLD: >>> old text >>> >>> NEW: >>> new text >>> >>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>> >>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, >>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in >>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >>> >>> >>> Approving for publication >>> -------------------------- >>> >>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>> >>> >>> Files >>> ----- >>> >>> The files are available here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9719 (draft-ietf-rift-yang-17) >>> >>> Title : YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) >>> Author(s) : Z. Zhang, Y. Wei, S. Ma, X. Liu, B. Rijsman >>> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
