Hi Mahesh,
Some alternatives to “black-hole” can be “null route”, “discard route”, “drop
route”, “sinkhole”, or “void route”.
For context, this is how “black-hole" appears in this document (it is used once
in the YANG module):
"Indicates an action to discard traffic for the corresponding
destination. For example, this can be used to black-hole
traffic.”;
Please let us know which alternate word you would prefer and we will update the
files accordingly.
Thank you,
Alanna Paloma
RFC Production Center
> On Sep 2, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alanna,
>
> To question #8 on inclusive language, I went to the NIST document to review
> options for “black-hole”, but I did not see any. Does the RFC Editor have any
> recommendations for what alternate word could be used?
>
> Thanks.
>
>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:46 PM, [email protected] 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?
>> -->
>>
>>
>> 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, [email protected] 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
>>
>> * [email protected] (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).
>>
>> * [email protected], 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,
>> [email protected] 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
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
