Hi Mahesh, Thank you for confirming. We’ve noted your approval: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835
Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:21 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Allana, > > The changes look good to me. Thanks. > >> On Aug 14, 2025, at 9:36 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We’ve updated the Security Considerations section >> accordingly. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >> changes side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/ap >> >>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 4:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
