Hi, > On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:46 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, AD, > > * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #5. > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] To avoid back-to-back use of "For example", may we update > the second occurrence as follows? > > Original: > For example, a > server can be a network controller or a router in a provider > network. > > For example, a bearer request is first created using a name which > is assigned by the client, but if this feature is supported, the > request will also include a server-generated reference. > > Perhaps: > For example, a > server can be a network controller or a router in a provider > network. > > As another example, a bearer request is first created using a name that > is assigned by the client, but if this feature is supported, the > request will also include a server-generated reference. > --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "to" to "for"? > > Original: > * 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is to all ACs that belong to the > same site. > > Perhaps: > 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is for all ACs that belong to the > same site. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following reference is cited only in > the YANG module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup between the references > section and the text, may we add the following reference entry to > the Normative References and add it to the list of citations preceding > the YANG module? > > Original: > This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], and > [RFC9181]. > > Perhaps: > This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], > [RFC9181], and [IEEE_802.1Q]. > ... > [IEEE_802.1Q] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area > Networks-Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q- > 2022, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, December 2022, > <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498>. > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module has been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the > Security Considerations 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. Specifically: > > - Paragraph 5 matches the template except for the last sentence > is an addition. Paragraph 6 does not seem to correspond to the template. > > - This sentence is not present, although the template says to include it. > "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." > > If it should be added, should it be at the end of the section? > -->
The security considerations in this draft are truly unique. As such, the template mostly does not apply. Please remove the first sentence in the Security Considerations section that goes like “This section is modeled after the template …”. Only the second and third paragraphs do, and even then, it is just a cut-and-paste. Best to remove it. Thanks. > > > 6) <!-- [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. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] Abbreviation > > a) 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. > > Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) > > > b) 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) > Service Function (SF) > --> > > > 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. > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > black-hole > --> > > > 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/rfc9833.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9833 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15) > > Title : A Common 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
