Hi Alice,
> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:48 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> 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."
That is ok to add, while maintaining the rest of the statements from the
template.
>
> - 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?
Yes, it should be added to 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.
> -->
These two paragraphs can be moved to the beginning of the Security
Considerations section before the statement that says “This section is modeled
after the template …”, just to be clear that it is not part of the template.
Alternatively, they could be moved into a sub-section.
Thanks.
>
>
>
> 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
>
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
