Hi Yingzhen, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825).
Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for making the changes. > > I approve the publication of this version. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:33 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Thanks for the quick turnaround. It looks good to me. > Acee > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:25 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Yingzhen and Acee, > > > > Thank you for providing the updated yang tree module. I've updated the > > files as you requested. > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. > > > > 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/rfc9825.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 30, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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
