Hi Mahesh, Thank you for confirming. We’ve noted your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833
Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:22 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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
