Hi Sandy, Thanks to you and your team for your diligence on following up on these these items.
> > On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:34 PM, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > We have removed the text added to Section 3.9, as well as the introductory > text that was added to 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2 per Med’s preference. Ok. > > Regarding this item: > >> That new text was added to address a comment both Mahesh and myself >> discussed with the RFC editor team and which was echoed in this question: >> >> 20) <!--[rfced] Would you like to add examples of "reference" >> substatements? The RPC and OPS ADs discussed this topic during >> IETF 123. The examples would show that the RFC title does not need >> to be included. (The exception is in the "revision" statement, >> where the title is typically included.) For example: >> >> reference (with section) >> "RFC 8665, Section 5 >> RFC 8666, Section 6"; >> >> reference (just RFC number) >> "RFC 8665 >> RFC 8666"; >> --> >> >> If I remember well, this is also to simplify the required reference >> checks/overload for the RFC Editor team (?). > > > To clarify, we suggested adding a couple of examples to introduce how authors > can refer to specific section numbers. In our recent experience, YANG > authors use a mix of reference styles - some of them are a bit confusing, for > example: > > reference > “… > RFC 8200: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification - Traffic > Class”; > > reference > “draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19: HTTP Semantics > - Request Method POST”; > > > Note that RFC 8200 has a section entitled “Traffic Classes”, so it’s unclear > whether the authors mean to refer to that section or “Traffic Class” > elsewhere in the document. draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics was published as RFC > 9110, which does not use the phrase “Request Method POST.” Entries like > these require the RPC to check the RFC and section titles and work with the > authors to tidy them, which can be especially challenging for longer modules. > We will continue to examine the reference clauses and reach out separately > about potentially creating some basic recommendations for these clauses. Thanks for providing context and examples for what ideally should be followed. I am not against the idea of providing better examples. My ask was that since the guidance was not discussed in the WG, we need to involve the WG to discuss and agree on what is the right amount of reference that should be added. Even now there does not seem to be a consensus on what is the right amount of reference. If it has to be done, the turnaround should be quick (less than a month between WGLC, IETF LC, and IESG). Since there seems to be a strong desire to fix this, Kent, as a shepherd, would you have a problem pulling this document out of the RFC Editor queue, having a quick discussion in the WG around just this change, doing a short consensus call and sending it back to me. No other change should be entertained at this point. In the above example, in my opinion (as a individual contributor) - a reference should be provided when referring to a RFC, rather than burying it in the description statement. That reference should come in the form of a “RFC XXXX: <Title of the RFC> - a Section should be referenced by its number Having the title of the draft helps those who do not have a map of RFC numbers to titles. YANG modules outside the draft, do not have luxury of the Normative/Informative References sections being available handily. Thanks. > > > The updated files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html > > Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Please let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you approve the > RFC for publication. > > Thanks, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Feb 18, 2026, at 7:26 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Megan, >> >> Based on the latest exchange ... >> >>>> On Feb 12, 2026, at 8:11 PM, Megan Ferguson >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mahesh, >>> >>> Sounds good. We have incorporated the change to “Optional”. We believe >>> that closes out Issues 2 and 4 from our previous mail. >>> >>> So we will wait to hear back: >>> >>> -from the authors regarding Issue 1 (the added text to Section 3.9) >> >> The added text in Section 3.9 should be dropped. >> >>> -that the wiki page has been updated (Issue 3) >> >> Not sure who has the action item for this. If you want me to take care of >> it, please let me know. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> >>> prior to moving this document forward. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml >>> >>> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive side >>> by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >>> to date) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>> changes side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last version to >>> this) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last version >>> side by side) >>> >>> The AUTH48 status page is viewable here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9907 >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Megan Ferguson >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2026, at 4:32 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Megan, >>>> >>>>> On Feb 12, 2026, at 2:54 PM, Megan Ferguson >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the quick reply! >>>>> >>>>> Some follow-ups below marked with [rfced]. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Megan Ferguson >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Issue #2: Redundant text in Section 4.30.3.1: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have updated to remove the text from the first paragraph in this >>>>>>> section as Mahesh suggested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Out of curiosity, is this a BCP 14 OPTIONAL? Or is this all caps just >>>>>>> to call attention to it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current: >>>>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL”. >>>>>> >>>>>> My take is that it is not. It just happens to be all caps, and it just >>>>>> happens to be one of the keywords from BCP 14. If we want to >>>>>> disambiguate, we could call it TEMPLATE. >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] Could we simply have this appear as “Optional” (as it is inside a >>>>> template)? >>>>> >>>>> Note that this would include a change in multiple places (twice in both >>>>> Sections 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2). >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL”. >>>>> … >>>>> -- OPTIONAL: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "Optional”. >>>>> … >>>>> --Optional: >>>> >>>> I am ok with that >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Further related clean up: >>>>> a) This discussion made me realize that we had not updated the <CODE >>>>> BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> tags used in Sections 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2 to >>>>> instead use <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END TEMPLATE TEXT> (as we had done >>>>> in the security considerations template section (see discussion with Med >>>>> below)). This change has now been incorporated (please refresh links to >>>>> view). >>>>> >>>>> Note also that we made the following related change to the change log: >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> * Added code markers for the security template. >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> * Added template markers for the security template. >>>> >>>> I do agree that it is not code, and using code markers would be odd. >>>> Thanks for updating them to use template markers. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> b) Note also that we have removed the following text from Section >>>>> 4.30.3.2 (to match its removal in 4.30.3.1). >>>>> >>>>> Original: >>>>> >>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL". Any text in >>>>> this section that needs to be customized should be included in the >>>>> template. Text that does not require customization should be omitted >>>>> from the IANA Considerations section. >>>>> >>>>> Current: >>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL”. >>>> >>>> Thanks for catching that. >>>> >>>> Cheers. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> b) In contrast, regarding your note (about Section 3.7.1): >>>>>>>> * Added code markers for the security template. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why are the code markers being used for the security >>>>>>>> considerations >>>>>>>> template? It seems odd because it is prose, not code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Med] This one was requested by the trust. Please see >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-netmod-05-security-considerations-template-for-yang-module-documents-00 >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gBEuz3mgOuyghmeQk7T4so_ZxF8/. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> c) Similarly, why are code markers used for the templates >>>>>>>> in Sections 4.30.3.1 and 4.30.3.2? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Med] For the same reasons as above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Might it be possible to update to <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END >>>>>> TEMPLATE TEXT> instead? Additionally, should the following paragraph >>>>>> from the TLP should be included? >>>>>> >>>>>> From https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/ >>>>>> (which is linked to from >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-netmod-05-security-considerations-template-for-yang-module-documents-00): >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 9. Template Text >>>>>> a. Certain RFCs may contain text designated as “Template Text” by the >>>>>> inclusion of the following legend in the introduction to the RFC: >>>>>> >>>>>> “This RFC contains text intended for use as a template as designated >>>>>> below by the markers <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END TEMPLATE TEXT> or >>>>>> other clear designation. Such Template Text is subject to the provisions >>>>>> of Section 9(b) of the Trust Legal Provisions.” >>>>> >>>>>> [Med] Works for me. Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Issue #3: The wiki page update to make >>>>>>> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines? match the >>>>>>> template in the document: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that we have added this as an “approver” on the AUTH48 status page >>>>>>> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9907 to ensure we match up >>>>>>> differences between the doc and that page prior to publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to updating to point to this document’s RFC number (once it >>>>>>> is published), we think the following still need to be updated on the >>>>>>> wiki page prior to publication (also viewable in the diff at >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-wiki-diff.html): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] >>>>>>> provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] >>>>>>> provides the means to restrict access for particular Network >>>>>>> Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) or... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> All writable data nodes are likely to be sensitive... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> All writable data nodes are likely to be reasonably sensitive… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> ...e.g., ones that might be protected by a "nacm:default-deny-write”... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> ...e.g., ones that might be protected by a "nacm:default-deny-write”… >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm. I am not sure if I am seeing a difference. >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] Sorry - copy and paste error: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps: >>>>> ...e.g., ones that are protected by a "nacm:default-deny-write”… >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> ...or get-config) are particularly sensitive or vulnerable… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> ...or get-config) that are particularly sensitive or vulnerable… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> ...readable data nodes are ones that might be protected by a… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> ...readable data nodes are ones that are protected by a… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current (at wiki): >>>>>>> ...then add this text to remind the specific sensitivity… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps (to match document): >>>>>>> ...then add this text as a reminder of the specific sensitivity… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Issue #4: Our request for AD approval of Med’s suggestion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Mahesh - please review and approve the following change: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>> The IANA Considerations Section MAY also provide the following >>>>>>> information if a default action is expected: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>> The IANA Considerations Section MAY also provide the following >>>>>>> information if a default action is to be overridden: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am ok with this change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for checking. >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] No problem. We have recorded your approval of this change in the >>>>> Notes field of the AUTH48 status page, but have left your “Approval” >>>>> field blank until the issue with the text in Section 3.9 issue is >>>>> resolved (we believe we’ve heard back from you approving all other >>>>> changes we requested - thank you!). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review our updates carefully as we do not make changes once the >>>>>>> document is published as an RFC. >>>>>>> Please contact us with any further changes you may have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive >>>>>>> side by side) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>> changes to date) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last version >>>>>>> to this) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last >>>>>>> version side by side) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The AUTH48 status page is viewable here: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9907 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Megan Ferguson >>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2026, at 8:39 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Megan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 2026, at 12:13 PM, Megan Ferguson >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Med, *Mahesh, (and IANA), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your careful reviews and replies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This message addresses mail from Mahesh, Med, and IANA (the changes >>>>>>>>> requested by Amanda on 22 January). For your convenience, we have >>>>>>>>> included links to the current versions of files in multiple places in >>>>>>>>> this mail (but all point to the same files). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review all updates carefully and let us know if further >>>>>>>>> changes are necessary. We will await approvals from all parties (and >>>>>>>>> of all actions) listed at the AUTH48 status page >>>>>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9907) prior to moving this >>>>>>>>> document forward in the publication process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Addressing Mahesh’s reply (and necessary actions): >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> *Mahesh - the addition of text to Section 3.9 can be viewed in the >>>>>>>>> diff files here: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes only) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have also attached a screenshot of the piece in question for your >>>>>>>>> convenience. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <Screen Shot 2026-01-16 at 10.25.54 AM.png> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the screenshot of the set of changes. I went and >>>>>>>> looked at all the revisions of the document including -25, the version >>>>>>>> approved by IESG. This whole text is a completely new addition, and >>>>>>>> was never approved by the WG or by IESG. As such, this cannot be >>>>>>>> approved, unless we poll the WG regarding the change. Alternatively, >>>>>>>> we can just drop this new text. I will also note that in later in the >>>>>>>> document, when it comes to IANA modules, we insist that the reference >>>>>>>> statement contain the title of the RFC. As such, these guidances are >>>>>>>> contradicting each other. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Separately, I will note that in Section 4.30.3.1 this text is repeated >>>>>>>> twice. The first time in the first paragraph: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any text in >>>>>>>> this section that needs to be customized should be included in the >>>>>>>> template. Text that does not require customization should be omitted >>>>>>>> from the IANA Considerations section. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and later in the “OPTIONAL” section: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module. >>>>>>>> -- Text that does not require customization should be >>>>>>>> -- omitted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do we need it twice? Maybe remove the new text in the first paragraph?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With regard to the possible updates to the wiki page at >>>>>>>>> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines?, we have >>>>>>>>> also posted a diff file to highlight the current differences between >>>>>>>>> the document (template) and the wiki at: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-wiki-diff.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of the differences highlighted are expected and will likely >>>>>>>>> remain (e.g., having an RFC number in brackets or marking with a >>>>>>>>> double dash in the RFC itself vs. colored boxes), but there are some >>>>>>>>> textual differences remaining that we believe should be resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding this comment from Mahesh: >>>>>>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>>>>>> "WG Web: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/> >>>>>>>>>>>> WG List: <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>>>>>> "WG Web: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name >>>>>>>>>>>> WG List: YOUR-WG-NAME <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Shouldn’t http be changed to https above? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have updated as suggested. Calling out here for author >>>>>>>>> awareness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the update to the instructions below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NEW1: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> // RFC Ed: replace 'date-revision' with the module publication date >>>>>>>>>> <— Moved “RFC Ed: here >>>>>>>>>> // the format is (YYYY-MM-DD) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> // replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove >>>>>>>>>> // this note >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> revision date-revision { >>>>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>>>> "What changed in this revision."; >>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>> "RFC XXXX: <Replace With Document Title>"; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> // Authors: Replace RFC IIIII with the RFC number and title. <— >>>>>>>>>> Made the text similar to the note to the RFC Editor. >>>>>>>>>> // of the RFC that defined the initial version of >>>>>>>>>> // the module and remove this note >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> revision date-initial { >>>>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>>>> "Initial version"; version."; >>>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>> "RFC IIII: <Replace With Document Title>"; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review our update to this text and let us know if any further >>>>>>>>> changes are necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Mahesh - please also review and approve the following updates we >>>>>>>>> have received in the meantime: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -the addition of text to the end of the Introduction >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -the updates captured in the "Addressing the mail exchange with IANA” >>>>>>>>> part of this email below (the updates suggested by IANA as well as >>>>>>>>> our updates to it) - this includes changes to Sections 4.30.3 (added >>>>>>>>> text), 4.30.3.1 (added and changed text), 4.30.3.2 (added and changed >>>>>>>>> text), 5.3 (and the reorganization/addition of Sections 5.3.1 and >>>>>>>>> 5.3.1). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have reviewed these changes and approve of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above are reviewable in the files below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>> (comprehensive side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes to date) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version to this) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Addressing Med’s mail (all resolved issues snipped): >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4) For 28d: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> d) Please review the use of module/model when it appears >>>>>>>>>>> without YANG >>>>>>>>>>>>> and confirm that these instances appear as intended. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Med] Will review that separately. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if any further changes are necessary once you >>>>>>>>>>> complete your review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Med] We can update all "model" occurrences in the bullet list of >>>>>>>>>> 4.23.3 to "module". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also, make a similar change in 4.23.3.1 for two occurrences. >>>>>>>>> [rfced] Please note that we also updated an instance before the >>>>>>>>> bulleted list in Section 4.23.3. Please review and let us know if >>>>>>>>> this change should be reverted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 5) 28(e) and 28(f) ask about quotation around terms: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> e) We note that there may be some inconsistency in the double >>>>>>>>>>> quotes >>>>>>>>>>>>> around statement names. For example, these terms are not >>>>>>>>>>> quoted at >>>>>>>>>>>>> places in the text: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> import statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> include statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> normative reference statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> XPath statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> extension statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG extension statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG conditional statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> reference statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> length statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> module tag extension statement >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Med] Please follow the same convention as in RFC8407 for these. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, RFC 8407 has some inconsistencies here. A number >>>>>>>>>>> of the items in the list above appear in both quotes and unquoted, >>>>>>>>>>> with the latter being more prevalent. Other statement names like >>>>>>>>>>> "description" and "revision" statement are majority quoted. >>>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if one of the following options should be >>>>>>>>>>> implemented: >>>>>>>>>>> a) double quote all statement (and substatement?) names >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Med] We can double quote all statements for internal consistency >>>>>>>>>> then and also with RFC7950. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is my proposal: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "import" statement >>>>>>>>>> "include" statement >>>>>>>>>> normative "reference" statement >>>>>>>>>> "XPath" statement >>>>>>>>>> "extension" statement >>>>>>>>>> YANG statement >>>>>>>>>> YANG "extension" statement >>>>>>>>>> YANG conditional statement >>>>>>>>>> "reference" statement >>>>>>>>>> "length" statement >>>>>>>>>> module-tag "extension" statement >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] In implementing these suggestions, we had these follow up >>>>>>>>> queries: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Should anydata be quoted here? >>>>>>>>> “Added anydata to the list of statements with mandatory”. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Should any quotes be added here? >>>>>>>>> "YANG module namespace statement" (see also namespace statement >>>>>>>>> without YANG module before). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Should “definition” be double-quoted in the following or other >>>>>>>>> instances of “data definition statement"? >>>>>>>>> “...all top-level data definition statements…" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -We see this use of “extensions statement”; should double quotes be >>>>>>>>> used? >>>>>>>>> “…or a “nacm:default-deny-all” extensions statement, then those…" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -We assume these should not be single-quoted in the YANG example, >>>>>>>>> please confirm. >>>>>>>>> "Several description and pattern statements have been improved.”;" >>>>>>>>> Pattern statements; range statement; max-elements statement; list >>>>>>>>> statement; YANG constraint statments, and YANG deviation statement? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Please advise on how quoting should appear in the following titles >>>>>>>>> (i.e., should any of these be double quoted as well?): >>>>>>>>> 4.8. Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statement (quotes only on >>>>>>>>> Revision, correct?) >>>>>>>>> 4.19.1. Conditional Augment Statements >>>>>>>>> 4.19.2. Conditionally Mandatory Data Definition Statements >>>>>>>>> 4.20. Deviation Statements >>>>>>>>> 4.21. Extension Statements >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -We added quotes to “extension” statement, but that makes for >>>>>>>>> back-to-back quotes as seen in this example (see Section 4.29 for >>>>>>>>> more examples): >>>>>>>>> “...the use of the "structure" “extension” statement...” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> f) Further, there are some similar terms that may benefit from >>>>>>>>>>>>> quotation review. We see: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when expression vs. "when" expression must expression vs. >>>>>>>>>>> "must" >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [rfced] Note also that we see "when" statement and "must" >>>>>>>>>>> statement. Should these be updated to expression? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Med] statement is actually more compliant with RFC7950. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have updated from “expression” to “statement” per this >>>>>>>>> guidance. Please review and let us know if this is in error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "deprecated" vs. "status deprecated" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have added quotation marks where these appears to be a >>>>>>>>>>> setting. Please advise if any changes from simply "deprecated" to >>>>>>>>>>> instead say "status deprecated" are desired. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Med] The 2 uses in the doc are OK. However, when re-reading: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CURRENT: >>>>>>>>>> The "/interfaces-state" hierarchy has >>>>>>>>>> been marked "status deprecated". Models that mark their "/foo- >>>>>>>>>> state" hierarchy with "status deprecated" will allow NMDA- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder whether: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OLD: been marked "status deprecated". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NEW: been marked with "status deprecated”. >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have made this update as requested. As this was marked “I >>>>>>>>> wonder”, please confirm this appears as desired. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 6) We did not see a reply to questions 29(b) and 29(c). Please >>>>>>>>>>> let us know if any action is necessary on these items: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> b) Please review the use of quotation marks (both single quotes >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> double quotes) with these terms; specifically, should they be >>>>>>>>>>> moved >>>>>>>>>>>>> to outside the <tt> tag? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we see both: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tt>"<CODE BEGINS>"</tt> tag >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tt><CODE BEGINS></tt> convention >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> c) Please review to ensure the usage of <tt> is consistent. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> appears that there may be varying treatment of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Med] Please use a consistent approach for all similar matters. >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have updated to include double quotes outside the <tt> >>>>>>>>> tags for CODE BEGINS and CODE ENDS throughout. We have added <tt> >>>>>>>>> tags and quotation marks around BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT and END TEMPLATE >>>>>>>>> TEXT as well. Please let us know any objections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above updates (and all the updates related Med’s mail are >>>>>>>>> reviewable in the most recent postings, again, those are viewable at: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>> (comprehensive side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes to date) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version to this) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Addressing the mail exchange with IANA: >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi! Med has asked us to coordinate four sets of changes to >>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis with you. He approved the proposed text >>>>>>>>>> for 4.30.3.1, 4.30.3.2, and 5.3 this morning, with a change that's >>>>>>>>>> been applied below (s/5.3/5.3.2/), and he provided the updated >>>>>>>>>> 4.30.3 text in a message from January 17th. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Amanda >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) Make this change to 4.30.3: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * A note that unassigned or reserved values must not be present in >>>>>>>>>> the IANA-maintained module. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * An instruction whether experimental values should be included in >>>>>>>>>> the IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided, >>>>>>>>>> experimental values MUST NOT be listed in the IANA-maintained module. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * An instruction about how to generate the "revision" statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The IANA Considerations Section MAY also provide the following >>>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>>> if a default action is expected: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * A note whether unassigned or reserved values should be present in >>>>>>>>>> the IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided, >>>>>>>>>> unassigned or reserved values must not be present in >>>>>>>>>> the IANA-maintained module. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * An instruction whether experimental values should be included in >>>>>>>>>> the IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided, >>>>>>>>>> experimental values MUST NOT be listed in the IANA-maintained >>>>>>>>>> module. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * An instruction about how to generate the "revision" statement. >>>>>>>>>> If not present, default actions provided in Section 5.3 will be >>>>>>>>>> followed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] Note that we updated the last bullet point to read as “If no >>>>>>>>> instruction is provided” instead of “If not present” to be consistent >>>>>>>>> with the two previous points. Please let us know any objections. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) Update Section 4.30.3.1 to read as follows: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4.30.3.1. Template for IANA-Maintained Modules with Identities >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL." Any text in >>>>>>>>>> this section that needs to be customized should be included in the >>>>>>>>>> template. Text that does not require customization should be omitted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <CODE BEGINS> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This document defines the initial version of the IANA-maintained >>>>>>>>>> "iana-foo" YANG module. The most recent version of the YANG module >>>>>>>>>> is available from the "YANG Parameters" registry group >>>>>>>>>> [IANA-YANG-PARAMETERS]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IANA is requested to add this note to the registry: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG >>>>>>>>>> module. They must instead be added to the "foo" registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo- >>>>>>>>>> registry]: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo" >>>>>>>>>> [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as defined in RFC IIII. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a value is added to the "foo" registry, a new "identity" >>>>>>>>>> statement needs to be added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. The name >>>>>>>>>> of the "identity" MUST be the name as provided in the registry. >>>>>>>>>> The "identity" statement should have the following >>>>>>>>>> sub-statements defined: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "base": Contains 'name-base-identity-defined-in-foo'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "status": Include only if a registration has been deprecated or >>>>>>>>>> obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps to YANG status >>>>>>>>>> "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" maps to YANG status >>>>>>>>>> "obsolete". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "description": Replicates the description from the registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "reference": Replicates the reference(s) from the registry. >>>>>>>>>> References to documents should also include titles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- OPTIONAL: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module. >>>>>>>>>> -- Text that does not require customization should be >>>>>>>>>> -- omitted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Notes tagged with "--" include instructions for authors. These >>>>>>>>>> notes >>>>>>>>>> -- must not be copied. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unassigned and Reserved Values: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if unassigned and/or reserved values >>>>>>>>>> -- (which may include experimental values) should be included >>>>>>>>>> -- in the module. These values are typically not included. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Description Substatements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in >>>>>>>>>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden. >>>>>>>>>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, >>>>>>>>>> "identity" statements, or both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reference Substatements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in >>>>>>>>>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden. >>>>>>>>>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, >>>>>>>>>> "identity" statements, or both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Naming Considerations: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- If a name in the IANA registry does not comply with the >>>>>>>>>> -- YANG naming conventions, add details how IANA can generate >>>>>>>>>> -- legal identifiers. For example, if the name begins with >>>>>>>>>> -- a number, indicate a preference to spell out the number when >>>>>>>>>> -- used as an identifier. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <CODE ENDS> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We made a slight further update to use “Section 5.3.2 of RFC >>>>>>>>> 9907” in the text under both “Description Substatements” and >>>>>>>>> “Reference Substatements”. We also updated the introductory text to >>>>>>>>> more closely match the text proposed for Section 4.30.3.2 (below). >>>>>>>>> Please review and let us know any concerns. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) Update Section 4.30.3.2 to read as follows (same text as above, >>>>>>>>>> aside from references to enums instead of identities): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4.30.3.2. Template for IANA-Maintained Modules with Enumerations >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL." Any text in >>>>>>>>>> this section that needs to be customized should be included in the >>>>>>>>>> template. Text that does not require customization should be omitted >>>>>>>>>> from the IANA Considerations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <CODE BEGINS> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This document defines the initial version of the IANA-maintained >>>>>>>>>> "iana-foo" YANG module. The most recent version of the YANG module >>>>>>>>>> is available from the "YANG Parameters" registry group >>>>>>>>>> [IANA-YANG-PARAMETERS]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IANA is requested to add this note to the registry: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG >>>>>>>>>> module. They must instead be added to the "foo" registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo- >>>>>>>>>> registry]: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo" >>>>>>>>>> [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as defined in RFC IIII. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a value is added to the "foo" registry, a new "enum" statement >>>>>>>>>> must be added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. The "enum" statement, >>>>>>>>>> and sub-statements thereof, should be defined: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "enum": Replicates a name from the registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "value": Contains the decimal value of the IANA-assigned >>>>>>>>>> value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "status": Is included only if a registration has been >>>>>>>>>> deprecated or obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps >>>>>>>>>> to YANG status "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" >>>>>>>>>> maps to YANG status "obsolete". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "description": Replicates the description from the registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "reference": Replicates the reference(s) from the registry. >>>>>>>>>> References to documents should also include titles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- OPTIONAL: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module. >>>>>>>>>> -- Text that does not require customization should be >>>>>>>>>> -- omitted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Notes tagged with "--" include instructions for authors. These >>>>>>>>>> notes >>>>>>>>>> -- must not be copied. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unassigned and Reserved Values: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if unassigned and/or reserved values >>>>>>>>>> -- (which may include experimental values) should be included >>>>>>>>>> -- in the module. These values are typically not included. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Description Substatements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in >>>>>>>>>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden. >>>>>>>>>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, >>>>>>>>>> "enum" statements, or both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reference Substatements: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in >>>>>>>>>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden. >>>>>>>>>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, >>>>>>>>>> "enum" statements, or both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Naming Considerations: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- If a name in the IANA registry does not comply with the >>>>>>>>>> -- YANG naming conventions, add details how IANA can generate >>>>>>>>>> -- legal identifiers. For example, if the name begins with >>>>>>>>>> -- a number, indicate a preference to spell out the number when >>>>>>>>>> -- used as an identifier. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <CODE ENDS> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] We have made similar updates as mentioned above (added RFC >>>>>>>>> 9907 to section mentions). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ========================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) Replace Section 5.3 with the following: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.3. IANA-Maintained Modules >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IANA should refer to Section 4.30.3 for information necessary to >>>>>>>>>> populate "revision" statements and "identity" and "enum" >>>>>>>>>> substatements in IANA-maintained modules. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These considerations cover both the creation and maintenance of an >>>>>>>>>> IANA-maintained module, and they include both instructions >>>>>>>>>> applicable to all IANA-maintained modules and instructions that can >>>>>>>>>> be customized by module creators. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.3.1. Requirements for All Modules >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In particular, the following instructions should apply to all >>>>>>>>>> modules: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * When an underlying registration is deprecated or obsoleted, a >>>>>>>>>> corresponding "status" substatement should be added to the identity >>>>>>>>>> or enumeration statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * The "reference" substatement in the revision statement should >>>>>>>>>> point specifically to the published module (i.e., >>>>>>>>>> IANA_FOO_URL_With_REV). When the registration is triggered by an >>>>>>>>>> RFC, that RFC must also be included in the "reference" substatement. >>>>>>>>>> It may also point to an authoritative event triggering the update to >>>>>>>>>> the YANG module. In all cases, the event is cited from the >>>>>>>>>> underlying IANA registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * References to documents should include titles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In addition, when the module is published, IANA must add the >>>>>>>>>> following notes to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The YANG Module Names registry: >>>>>>>>>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. >>>>>>>>>> They must instead be added to the "foo" registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The underlying registry: >>>>>>>>>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo" >>>>>>>>>> [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as defined in RFC IIII. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5.3.2. Requirements Subject to Customization >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless the creators of an IANA-maintained module specify otherwise >>>>>>>>>> in their document's IANA Considerations section, the following >>>>>>>>>> instructions will apply: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Unassigned and reserved values (including experimental values) >>>>>>>>>> will be omitted from the module. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * The "reference" statement in an "identity" or "enum" substatement >>>>>>>>>> should mirror the underlying registry. It may point to contact names >>>>>>>>>> as well as documents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * In a revision statement, the "description" substatement captures >>>>>>>>>> what changed in the >>>>>>>>>> revised version. Typically, the description enumerates changes >>>>>>>>>> such as updates to existing entries (e.g., update a description or >>>>>>>>>> a reference) or notes which identities were added or had their status >>>>>>>>>> changed (e.g., deprecated, discouraged, or obsoleted). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When such a description is not feasible, the description varies in >>>>>>>>>> accordance with the trigger for the update. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the update is triggered by an RFC, the "description" substatement >>>>>>>>>> should include or consist of this text: >>>>>>>>>> "Applied updates as specified by RFC XXXX." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the registration policy for the registry does not require RFC >>>>>>>>>> publication (Section 4 of [RFC8126]), insert this text: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Applied updates as specified by the registration policy >>>>>>>>>> <Some_IANA_policy>". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [rfced] A few points: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) Please review the following text: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * When an underlying registration is deprecated or obsoleted, a >>>>>>>>>> corresponding "status" substatement should be added to the identity >>>>>>>>>> or enumeration statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should double quotes be added to make this “identity” or >>>>>>>>> “enumeration” statements (double quotes and plural statement)? We >>>>>>>>> also note that “identity” and “enum” substatements used in the text >>>>>>>>> preceding this. Please confirm that these should not match (i.e., >>>>>>>>> the lead in text is about substatements and the text above is about >>>>>>>>> statements). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) We have updated to use “revision” statement (in quotes) or >>>>>>>>> “description” etc. Please review any addition of quotation marks and >>>>>>>>> let us know if these were general uses instead of statement names and >>>>>>>>> we can revert if necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) Should the following text be in double quotes in the template? >>>>>>>>> Other parts of the template are not quoted... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Applied updates as specified by RFC XXXX." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Applied updates as specified by the registration policy >>>>>>>>>> <Some_IANA_policy>". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The incorporation of the updates requested by IANA are reviewable in >>>>>>>>> the most recent postings, which (again) are located at: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>> (comprehensive side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes to date) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version to this) >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last >>>>>>>>> version side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Megan Ferguson >>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
