Hi RFC Editor, Refer to the attached RFC diff.
> On Jul 17, 2025, at 5:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors and AD*, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > *AD, please see question #7 below. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing > YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks > (WSONs) > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. > > Current: > Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags > > Perhaps: > A Yang Data Model for Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix > Administrative Tags > --> No. The YANG model augmentations are ancillary to the additional function provided by the OSPF administrative tags. As for you suggestion, note that it is "YANG" and never "Yang". > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> None. > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA" to "OSPFv2 > Extended > Prefix Opaque LSA" to match RFC 7684. Please let us know of any objections. Ok. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added line breaks to the YANG tree > diagram as well as a note and reference to RFC 8792 for the '\' > line wrapping. Please review. > --> I don't like this - please format as specified in the attached diff. > > > 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - As the RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 keywords are not used > within the YANG module, we have removed the keywords boilerplate > paragraph from the module. > --> Ok. > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module has been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know of any concerns. > --> Ok > > > 7) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that the first paragraph in the Security > Considerations section does not match what appears at > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. This is intended. There seems to be confusion here that this document is primarily to standardize the YANG module. > > Additionally, we have made some updates in this section to closer > reflect the boilerplate. Please review this section and let us know > if any further updates are necessary. > --> Ok. This is a moving target - I took the latest from draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. Note that Med also commented that the security protocols referenced as examples should be informational references. > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > be used interchangeably. Please review these occurrences and let us know > if/how they may be made consistent. > > Administrative Tag vs. admin tag vs. administrative tag > Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. Administrative Tag TLV vs. > administrative tag TLV > E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSA > E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Intra-Area-Prefix LSA > Extended Prefix TLV vs. extended prefix TLV > Prefix Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. prefix admin tag sub-TLV > --> Ok - I've updated all these for consistency. > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) > --> Ok. > > > 10) <!-- [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. I didn't find any violations either. Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9825-orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
