Hi Mahesh, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the Security Considerations section accordingly; see the files below.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Aug 12, 2025, at 10:00 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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
