Hi Sarah, I approve this version with the correction of one typo (attached).
Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9825-orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Jul 23, 2025, at 9:03 AM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > Thank you so much for taking a second, careful look at the diff. I've made > the "Sub-TLV" changes you requested and have no further questions. > > We will await approvals from each you and Yingzhen 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 22, 2025, at 3:13 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >> >> >> >>> 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
