Hi Sarah, I had made that change for some of the other lines in the tree but I guess I missed some lines since I did it manually. Let's use the non-wrapped version that Yingzhen generated.
Then I believe we can also get rid of this note and reference: This document uses the graphical representation of data models per [RFC8340]. NOTE: '\' line wrapping is per [RFC8792]. [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792>. Thanks, Acee > On Jul 30, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Sorry for the late response. > > For the YANG tree in section 7.1, instead of using "\" for line wrapping, I > regenerated the tree with line length equal to 69. Please see attached and > let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 7:34 AM Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Hi Yingzhen, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your approval 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 23, 2025, at 11:33 AM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Acee, > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and > > marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825). > > > > We will await approval from 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 23, 2025, at 11:27 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sarah, > >> > >> I approve this version with the correction of one typo (attached). > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> > >> > >> > >>> 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> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > <ietf-ospf-admin-tags.tree> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
