Hi Sarah, Thanks for catching this. The file has been updated:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-ospf-admin-tags.txt Thanks, Sabrina On Wed Jul 30 21:07:49 2025, starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Hi IANA, > > Please make the following update to the "IETF XML Registry" at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-ospf-admin- > tags.txt. > > Minor update: add period after "namespace" > > Old: > XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace > > New: > XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/st > > > On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:50 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc- > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > 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
