Hi Alanna, The changes look good to me. Thanks.
> On Aug 14, 2025, at 9:35 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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 > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
