Hi Alanna, Thank you for the updates; they look good to me.
Regards, Bo -----Original Message----- From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 12:40 AM To: Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com> Cc: mohamed.boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; rrobe...@juniper.net; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>; samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com; Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>; auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9834 <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20> for your review Hi Bo, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. Additionally, please note that 19 of our previously sent document-specific questions have not yet been addressed. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 26, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > On #19 "Network Slice Service vs. Slice Service vs. IETF Network Slice > Service", I recommend adopting “RFC 9543 Network Slice Service(s)” since RFC > 9543 suggests to use “RFC 9543 Network Slice Service” for consistency. > > Thanks, > Bo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:31 AM > To: mohamed.boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; > rrobe...@juniper.net; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS > <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>; > samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com; Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com> > Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO > <luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com>; auth48archive > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9834 > <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20> for your review > > Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your response to our previously > sent questions. > > We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Aug 13, 2025, at 5:11 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >> Thank you for confirming. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status >> page: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 >> >> Best regards, >> RFC Editor/ap >> >>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 3:08 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> These changes look good to me. Thanks for working on them. >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 2:22 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the quick reply. The files have been updated accordingly. >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html (comprehensive >>>> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html >>>> (AUTH48 changes) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>> >>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>> <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alanna, >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 12:01 PM, Alanna Paloma >>>>>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have slightly updated your suggested text; see below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Additionally, we have a clarifying question. Should the section citation >>>>>> be updated to match the template (Section 3.7 vs. Section 3.7.1)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Current: >>>>>> The remainder of this section is modeled after the template >>>>>> described in Section 3.7 of [YANG-GUIDELINES]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Template (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines): >>>>>> This section is modeled after the template described in Section >>>>>> 3.7.1 of [RFC-to-be draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. >>>>> >>>>> Reference should be to Section 3.7.1. Thanks for catching it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure of the first line though that starts with “Template >>>>> (https://…)”. That would be odd, as we have the reference to the template >>>>> in rfc8407bis already. Giving another reference, this time to the wiki >>>>> would be a duplicate reference. Please drop that line. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html >>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 >>>>>> changes) >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 10:35 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Alanna, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for making the changes. Just one nit. Can we say? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>> This section is modeled after the template described ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>> The remaining section is modeled after the template described … >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Alanna Paloma >>>>>>>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the Security Considerations >>>>>>>> section accordingly; see the files below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html >>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes) >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2025, at 10:00 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>>>> <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Alice, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:48 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Authors, AD, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #13. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] In the RFC's title, we suggest removing the >>>>>>>>>> single quotes and hyphens. Other expansions of "ACaaS" in the >>>>>>>>>> document and the related documents would be updated >>>>>>>>>> accordingly. Is the suggested title acceptable? (This is similar >>>>>>>>>> to how "Software as a Service (SaaS)" >>>>>>>>>> typically does not appear with hyphens when used as a noun.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment >>>>>>>>>> Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Suggested: >>>>>>>>>> YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a >>>>>>>>>> Service (ACaaS) >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] In the second sentence below, does the >>>>>>>>>> customer retrieve "a reference" or "an indication" or something else? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer >>>>>>>>>> reference that they will include in their AC service requests. >>>>>>>>>> Likewise, a customer may retrieve whether their bearers >>>>>>>>>> support a synchronization mechanism such as Sync Ethernet (SyncE) >>>>>>>>>> [ITU-T-G.781]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer >>>>>>>>>> reference that they will include in their AC service requests. >>>>>>>>>> Likewise, a customer may retrieve a reference if their >>>>>>>>>> bearers support a synchronization mechanism such as Sync Ethernet >>>>>>>>>> (SyncE) [ITU-T-G.781]. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have reformatted some of the >>>>>>>>>> definitions in the "Conventions and Definitions" section to >>>>>>>>>> reflect what appears in RFCs-to-be 9833 and 9835. Please review and >>>>>>>>>> let us know any changes. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] We note that the definitions for "Network >>>>>>>>>> controller" and "Service orchestrator" in RFC-to-be 9835 each >>>>>>>>>> have an additional sentence that does not appear in the >>>>>>>>>> definition in this document. Should this sentence be added? >>>>>>>>>> (Specifically, "One or multiple..." and "A service >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator may interact..." are the additional sentences.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This document (current): >>>>>>>>>> Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible >>>>>>>>>> for the management of the service provider network. >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that >>>>>>>>>> interacts with the customer of a network service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the >>>>>>>>>> attachment circuits, the PE selection, and requesting the >>>>>>>>>> activation of the requested service to a network controller. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC-to-be 9835: >>>>>>>>>> Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible >>>>>>>>>> for the management of the service provider network. One or >>>>>>>>>> multiple network controllers can be deployed in a service provider >>>>>>>>>> network. >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that >>>>>>>>>> interacts with the customer of a network service. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the >>>>>>>>>> attachment circuits, the Provider Edge (PE) selection, and >>>>>>>>>> requesting the activation of the requested services to a network >>>>>>>>>> controller. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A service orchestrator may interact with one or more network >>>>>>>>>> controllers. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Since "L2VPN" and "L3VPN" are defined prior to >>>>>>>>>> these terms listed and to make the definitions more concise, >>>>>>>>>> may we update to "LxVPN"? Note that this would also match the text >>>>>>>>>> in RFC-to-be 9835. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> Service provider network: A network that is able to provide >>>>>>>>>> network services (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network >>>>>>>>>> Slice Services). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Service provider: An entity that offers network services >>>>>>>>>> (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network Slice Services). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> Service provider network: A network that is able to provide >>>>>>>>>> network services (e.g., LxVPN or Network Slice Services). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Service provider: An entity that offers network services >>>>>>>>>> (e.g., LxVPN or Network Slice Services). >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Figure 5 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other >>>>>>>>>> figures in the document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update >>>>>>>>>> the CEs in Figure 5 to match the other figures in the document? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated accordingly. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] To avoid repetition of "future", may we remove >>>>>>>>>> "in the future" from this sentence? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> Future placement criteria >>>>>>>>>> ('constraint-type') may be defined in the future to >>>>>>>>>> accommodate specific deployment contexts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> Future placement criteria >>>>>>>>>> ('constraint-type') may be defined to accommodate specific >>>>>>>>>> deployment contexts. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "when requesting a >>>>>>>>>> bearer"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a combination >>>>>>>>>> thereof, or a custom information when requesting a bearer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a combination >>>>>>>>>> thereof, or custom information. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "actually"? >>>>>>>>>> Note that there are a number of other places throughout the >>>>>>>>>> document with similar phrasing, which would also be updated. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> 'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the >>>>>>>>>> bearer actually was enabled. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the >>>>>>>>>> bearer was enabled. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "by an identifier" to "of >>>>>>>>>> an identifier"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by >>>>>>>>>> the provider server by an identifier. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by >>>>>>>>>> the provider server of an identifier. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 4271 is only cited in the >>>>>>>>>> "ietf-ac-svc" YANG module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup >>>>>>>>>> between the references section and the text, may we add it to >>>>>>>>>> the RFCs listed prior to the YANG module and add a normative >>>>>>>>>> reference for it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC9181], >>>>>>>>>> [RFC8177], and [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:: >>>>>>>>>> This module uses types defined in [RFC4271], [RFC6991], >>>>>>>>>> [RFC9181], [RFC8177], and [RFC9833]. >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A >>>>>>>>>> Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, >>>>>>>>>> DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module "ietf-ac-svc" has been >>>>>>>>>> updated per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any >>>>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>>>> (No changes were needed for "ietf-bearer-svc".) >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13) <!--[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: >>>>>>>>>> - Paragraph 3, the first 2 sentences are not from the template: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Servers MUST verify that requesting clients are entitled to >>>>>>>>>> access and manipulate a given bearer or AC. For example, a >>>>>>>>>> given customer must not have access to bearers/ACs of other >>>>>>>>>> customers." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is ok to add, while maintaining the rest of the statements from >>>>>>>>> the template. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - This sentence is not present: >>>>>>>>>> "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." >>>>>>>>>> If it should be added, should it be at the end of the section? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it should be added 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. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These two paragraphs can be moved to the beginning of the Security >>>>>>>>> Considerations section before the statement that says “This section >>>>>>>>> is modeled after the template …”, just to be clear that it is not >>>>>>>>> part of the template. Alternatively, they could be moved into a >>>>>>>>> sub-section. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 14) <!--[rfced] "Step (3)" does not seem accurate here. Does >>>>>>>>>> it refer to item 3 in the list of assumptions, i.e., "3. The >>>>>>>>>> customer provisions the networking logic..."? If so, may it be >>>>>>>>>> updated as follows? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> * The Cloud Provider for the configuration per Step (3) above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> * The Cloud Provider for the configuration per item 3 above. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 15) <!--[rfced] We note that this text was indented. As it is >>>>>>>>>> unclear to us why it was indented, we have removed the >>>>>>>>>> indentation. Was the intent for this to be a "Note"? If yes, >>>>>>>>>> would you like this text to be in an <aside> element, which >>>>>>>>>> is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less >>>>>>>>>> important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" >>>>>>>>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the >>>>>>>>>> installed BGP base (including by some Cloud Providers). >>>>>>>>>> Note that MD5 suffers from the security weaknesses discussed >>>>>>>>>> in Section 2 of [RFC6151] and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> | Note: The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the >>>>>>>>>> | installed BGP base (including by some Cloud Providers). >>>>>>>>>> | Note that MD5 suffers from the security weaknesses >>>>>>>>>> | discussed in Section 2 of [RFC6151] and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952]. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] To clarify the citation of >>>>>>>>>> I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue (RFC-to-be 9836), we have >>>>>>>>>> added "AC Glue" preceding it. Please review and let us know if >>>>>>>>>> further updates are needed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>>>>> In any case, the parent >>>>>>>>>> AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a >>>>>>>>>> reference by end-to-end service models for VPN configuration >>>>>>>>>> such as [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue], Slice Service >>>>>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang], etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Current: >>>>>>>>>> In any case, the parent >>>>>>>>>> AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a >>>>>>>>>> reference by end-to-end service models for VPN configuration >>>>>>>>>> such as AC Glue [RFC9836], Slice Service [NSSM], etc. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork to sourcecode in >>>>>>>>>> Sections 5.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, >>>>>>>>>> 5.2.5.3, 5.2.5.3.1, 5.2.5.3.2, 5.2.5.3.3, 5.2.5.3.4, >>>>>>>>>> 5.2.5.3.5, 5.2.5.3.6, 5.2.5.4, 5.2.5.5, and 5.2.5.6 and >>>>>>>>>> Appendix B. Please review whether this is correct. We note >>>>>>>>>> that a YANG tree diagram is typically held in a sourcecode element >>>>>>>>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#sourcecode). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In addition, please review the "type" attribute of each >>>>>>>>>> sourcecode element in the XML file to ensure correctness. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available >>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. >>>>>>>>>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel >>>>>>>>>> free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is >>>>>>>>>> also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 18) <!--[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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> attachment circuit (AC) >>>>>>>>>> Customer Edge (CE) >>>>>>>>>> Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) >>>>>>>>>> Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) >>>>>>>>>> Service Function (SF) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> b) FYI - We have added expansions for the following >>>>>>>>>> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). >>>>>>>>>> Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure >>>>>>>>>> correctness. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Customer VLAN (CVLAN) >>>>>>>>>> IP Address Management (IPAM) >>>>>>>>>> Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) >>>>>>>>>> Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) >>>>>>>>>> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a) 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Network Slice Service vs. Slice Service vs. IETF Network >>>>>>>>>> Slice Service >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> b) To reflect how "parent AC" is consistently lowercase, may >>>>>>>>>> we update instances of "Child AC" to "child AC"? Note that >>>>>>>>>> there is mixed usage throughout the document. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" >>>>>>>>>> portion of the online Style Guide >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_langu >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> ge> 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: >>>>>>>>>> natively >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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- >>>>>>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>>>> Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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/rfc9834.xml >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-rfcdiff.html (side >>>>>>>>>> by side) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-xmldiff1.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> RFC9834 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Title : YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment >>>>>>>>>> Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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
