Hi Alanna, Thanks for making the changes. Just one nit. Can we say?
OLD: This section is modeled after the template described ... NEW: The remaining section is modeled after the template described … Thanks. > On Aug 13, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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 > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
