Authors, AD,
* Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #13.
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] In the RFC's title, we suggest removing the single quotes
and hyphens. Other expansions of "ACaaS" in the document and the related
documents would be updated accordingly. Is the suggested title
acceptable? (This is similar to how "Software as a Service (SaaS)"
typically does not appear with hyphens when used as a noun.)
Original:
YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
Suggested:
YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)
-->
2) <!--[rfced] In the second sentence below, does the customer
retrieve "a reference" or "an indication" or something else?
Original:
The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer reference that
they will include in their AC service requests. Likewise, a customer
may retrieve whether their bearers support a synchronization
mechanism such as Sync Ethernet (SyncE) [ITU-T-G.781].
Perhaps:
The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer reference that
they will include in their AC service requests. Likewise, a customer
may retrieve a reference if their bearers support a synchronization
mechanism such as Sync Ethernet (SyncE) [ITU-T-G.781].
-->
3) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have reformatted some of the definitions in the
"Conventions and Definitions" section to reflect what appears in
RFCs-to-be 9833 and 9835. Please review and let us know any changes.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] We note that the definitions for "Network controller" and
"Service orchestrator" in RFC-to-be 9835 each have an additional sentence
that does not appear in the definition in this document. Should this
sentence be added? (Specifically, "One or multiple..." and "A service
orchestrator may interact..." are the additional sentences.)
This document (current):
Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible for the
management of the service provider network.
...
Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that interacts
with the customer of a network service.
A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the attachment
circuits, the PE selection, and requesting the activation of the
requested service to a network controller.
RFC-to-be 9835:
Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible for the
management of the service provider network. One or multiple
network controllers can be deployed in a service provider network.
...
Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that interacts
with the customer of a network service.
A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the attachment
circuits, the Provider Edge (PE) selection, and requesting the
activation of the requested services to a network controller.
A service orchestrator may interact with one or more network
controllers.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Since "L2VPN" and "L3VPN" are defined prior to these terms listed
and to make the definitions more concise, may we update to "LxVPN"? Note that
this would also match the text in RFC-to-be 9835.
Original:
Service provider network: A network that is able to provide network
services (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network Slice
Services).
Service provider: An entity that offers network services (e.g.,
Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network Slice Services).
Perhaps:
Service provider network: A network that is able to provide network
services (e.g., LxVPN or Network Slice Services).
Service provider: An entity that offers network services (e.g.,
LxVPN or Network Slice Services).
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Figure 5 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other figures in the
document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update the CEs in Figure 5 to match
the other figures in the document?
If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated accordingly.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] To avoid repetition of "future", may we remove "in the
future" from this sentence?
Original:
Future placement criteria
('constraint-type') may be defined in the future to accommodate
specific deployment contexts.
Perhaps:
Future placement criteria
('constraint-type') may be defined to accommodate specific deployment
contexts.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "when requesting a bearer"?
Original:
A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a
combination thereof, or a custom information when requesting a
bearer.
Perhaps:
A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a
combination thereof, or custom information.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "actually"? Note that there
are a number of other places throughout the document with similar phrasing,
which would also be updated.
Original:
'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the bearer
actually was enabled.
Perhaps:
'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the bearer
was enabled.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "by an identifier" to "of an
identifier"?
Original:
All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by the
provider server by an identifier.
Perhaps:
All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by the
provider server of an identifier.
-->
11) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 4271 is only cited in the "ietf-ac-svc" YANG
module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup between the references section
and the text, may we add it to the RFCs listed prior to the YANG module
and add a normative reference for it?
Original:
This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC9181], [RFC8177],
and [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac].
Perhaps::
This module uses types defined in [RFC4271], [RFC6991], [RFC9181], [RFC8177],
and [RFC9833].
...
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
-->
12) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module "ietf-ac-svc" has been updated per the
formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns.
(No changes were needed for "ietf-bearer-svc".)
-->
13) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the
Security Considerations section that differs from the template on
<https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>.
Please review and let us know if the text is acceptable.
For example:
- Paragraph 3, the first 2 sentences are not from the template:
"Servers MUST verify that requesting clients are entitled to access
and manipulate a given bearer or AC. For example, a given customer
must not have access to bearers/ACs of other customers."
- This sentence is not present:
"There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations."
If it should be added, should it be at the end of the section?
>From the guidelines page:
If the data model contains any particularly sensitive RPC or action
operations, then those operations must be listed here, along with an
explanation of the associated specific sensitivity or vulnerability
concerns. Otherwise, state: "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or
action operations."
- The last two paragraphs (after the readable nodes section) do
not seem to be within a section of the template.
-->
14) <!--[rfced] "Step (3)" does not seem accurate here. Does it refer to item 3
in the list of assumptions, i.e., "3. The customer provisions the networking
logic..."? If so, may it be updated as follows?
Original:
* The Cloud Provider for the configuration per Step (3) above.
Perhaps:
* The Cloud Provider for the configuration per item 3 above.
-->
15) <!--[rfced] We note that this text was indented. As it is unclear to us why
it was indented, we have removed the indentation. Was the intent for this
to be a "Note"? If yes, would you like this text to be in an <aside> element,
which is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important
or tangential to the content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
Original:
The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the installed BGP
base (including by some Cloud Providers). Note that MD5 suffers
from the security weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of [RFC6151]
and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952].
Perhaps:
| Note: The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the installed
| BGP base (including by some Cloud Providers). Note that MD5 suffers
| from the security weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of [RFC6151]
| and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952].
-->
16) <!--[rfced] To clarify the citation of I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue
(RFC-to-be 9836), we have added "AC Glue" preceding it. Please review
and let us know if further updates are needed.
Original:
In any case, the parent
AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a reference by
end-to-end service models for VPN configuration such as
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue], Slice Service
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang], etc.
Current:
In any case, the parent
AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a reference by
end-to-end service models for VPN configuration such as
AC Glue [RFC9836], Slice Service [NSSM], etc.
-->
17) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork to sourcecode in Sections 5.1, 5.2.1,
5.2.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, 5.2.5.3.1, 5.2.5.3.2,
5.2.5.3.3, 5.2.5.3.4, 5.2.5.3.5, 5.2.5.3.6, 5.2.5.4, 5.2.5.5, and 5.2.5.6
and Appendix B. Please review whether this is correct. We note that a
YANG tree diagram is typically held in a sourcecode element
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#sourcecode).
In addition, please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness.
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
18) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used
throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon
first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document?
attachment circuit (AC)
Customer Edge (CE)
Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN)
Service Function (SF)
b) 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.
Customer VLAN (CVLAN)
IP Address Management (IPAM)
Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN)
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
-->
19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.
Network Slice Service vs. Slice Service vs. IETF Network Slice Service
b) To reflect how "parent AC" is consistently lowercase, may we update
instances of "Child AC" to "child AC"? Note that there is mixed usage
throughout the document.
-->
20) <!-- [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.
For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
natively
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ap/ar
On Aug 11, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/08/11
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9834 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20)
Title : YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment
Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
Author(s) : M. Boucadair, R. Roberts, O. Gonzalez de Dios, S. Barguil
Giraldo, B. Wu
WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
