All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Sincerely, 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
