Hi Sarah, You didn't apply my last changes correctly. "Sub-TLV" should be capitalized when used as a specific sub-TLV, i.e., a proper noun. See the attached diff.
Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9825-orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Acee and AD*, > > AD* - please see question #7 below. We've included Acee's response and > updated accordingly, but we still need official AD approval and/or edits. > >>> 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>. >> >> Acee: 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. >>> --> >> >> Acee: 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. > > See Section 8 in https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html > > --- > > Acee - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. > > Please note that we did use the lowercase "sub-TLV" (instead of "Sub-TLV") to > match recent past RFCs. > > While we await AD approval, please review the document carefully to ensure > satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. > Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in > its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving > forward in the publication process. > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > most recent version. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/st > >> On Jul 20, 2025, at 5:48 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
