Hi, > On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:50 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, AD, > > * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #4. > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 4 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other > figures in the document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update the CEs in > Figure 4 to match the other figures in the document? > > If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated accordingly. > --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "to" to "for"? > > Original: > 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is to all peer SAPs that belong to > the same site. > > Perhaps: > 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is for all peer SAPs that belong to > the same site. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] FYI, this YANG module has been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 4) <!--[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: > - This sentence is not present; should it be added? > "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." > If so, should it be at the end of the section? > (Your reply to this question will also be applied to RFC 9836.)
Yes, please add the statement 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. > —> > Please do something similar to what I recommended on the other document. Let us move the two paragraphs to the beginning of the Security Considerations section, and before the line “This section is modeled after ….”. That statement should be further modified as follows: OLD: This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [YANG-GUIDELINES]. NEW: The remaining section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7.1 of [YANG-GUIDELINES]. Thanks. > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element > in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred > values for "type" > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] 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. > > Hold Time vs. holdtime > Network Slice Service vs. Network Slice > --> > > > 7) <!--[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 for consistency? > > attachment circuit (AC) > Customer Edge (CE) > Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) > Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) > Provider Edge (PE) > Service Attachment Point (SAP) > > b) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Class of Service (CoS) > --> > > > 8) <!-- [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. > --> > > > 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/rfc9835.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9835 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16) > > Title : A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits > 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
