Hi Mahesh, Thank you for your reply. We have removed the first sentence of the Security Considerations section as well as the informative reference entry for [YANG-GUIDELINES].
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Aug 13, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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
