Hi Med, Thank you for the guidance! We have updated as requested and reposted.
We will await responses from the authors regarding the other document-specific questions we sent, author approvals of the document, as well as the completion of AUTH48 for the related documents in Cluster C463 prior to moving forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012-diff.html (comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012-auth48diff.html (Final Review changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10012-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The Final Review status page for this document is viewable here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10012/ Cluster-related information is viewable here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/463/ Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On Jun 18, 2026, at 1:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Megan/Karen, > > Please see below: > > > 11) <!--[rfced] [AD] We have the following questions/comments related to the > Security Considerations section: > > a) We have updated the text to attempt to match the most recent version of > the Security Considerations template at > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines. Please review > these changes carefully and let us know any objections/concerns. > > In particular, please review if a list of RFCs needs to be added to the > "These modules use groupings..." paragraph. > > Med: I suggest > > (1) > > OLD: These modules use groupings from other YANG modules > > NEW: These modules use groupings from other YANG modules from other RFCs > > (2) > > OLD: > Refer to the Security Considerations of the following > Documents > > NEW: > Refer to the Security Considerations of [RFC9645]] and [RFC10011] > > (3) > > I would merge the para starting with " The groupings defined in other RFCs " > with the previous one. > > (4) > > OLD: The groupings defined in other RFCs > > NEW: The groupings defined in these other RFCs > > > b) We have included some informative reference entries to match the guidance > at the template above. We have also removed the normative reference entry > for RFC 6242 for the same reason. > > Med: ACK. We need to also make the following changes: > > (1) please move the following RFCs from Normative to Informative: > > RFC6241, RFC8040, RFC8446, and RFC8342. > > (2) delete this text to comply with the guidance in RFC0799 > > CURRENT: > The YANG data models in this document conform to the Network > Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342]. > > > Note that RFC8342 should be kept but as Info as that is used on an example. > > > c) Please review whether any text related to RPC or action operations should > be included. According to the wiki page, there should either be the > boilerplate paragraph or "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action > operations." We see neither. > > > Med: Please add: > > NEW: > There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations. > --> > > > > 14) <!--[rfced] [AD] In "example-alto-alg" (Appendix A.4), we see the > following BCP 14 keyword: > > Original: > The referenced YANG datastore MUST be... > > However, according to Section 3.6 of RFC 9907: > "Example YANG modules and example YANG fragments MUST NOT contain > any normative text, including any key words from [RFC2119] and > [RFC8174]." > > Please let us know how to update. > > Med: Please s/MUST/must in that example. Thank you. > --> > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Envoyé : mercredi 17 juin 2026 20:13 >> À : [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; BOUCADAIR >> Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; ops- >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Objet : [AD] Re: RFC-to-be 10012 (draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang) in XML >> >> >> Authors and *AD, >> >> While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve >> (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the >> source file. >> >> *AD, please see questions #11 and #14. >> >> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that other documents in Cluster C463 use >> "This document defines...YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] modules..." Should >> something similar be used in this document (Intro or Abstract)? >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] We have a few questions related to the following >> text: >> >> Original: >> The basic structure of this YANG data model is guided by >> Section 16 >> of [RFC7285] and [RFC7971]. Although the scope of the YANG >> data >> model in this document mainly focuses on the support of the >> base ALTO >> protocol [RFC7285] and the existing ALTO standard extensions: >> [RFC8189], [RFC8895], [RFC8896], [RFC9240], [RFC9241], >> [RFC9274], >> [RFC9275], and [RFC9439]. >> >> a) The second sentence is a fragment. Please consider the >> sentence before and if the info should be combined. >> >> b) "Section 16" might be attributed to both RFCs; we suggest >> updating to disambiguate. >> >> c) Are "ALTO standard extensions" the same as "ALTO protocol >> extensions"? >> >> >> Taking a, b, and c into account: >> >> Perhaps: >> The basic structure of this YANG data model is guided by >> Section 16 >> of [RFC7285] and by [RFC7971]; however, the scope of the YANG >> data >> model in this document mainly focuses on the support of the >> base ALTO >> protocol [RFC7285] and the existing ALTO protocol extensions: >> [RFC8189], [RFC8895], [RFC8896], [RFC9240], [RFC9241], >> [RFC9274], >> [RFC9275], and [RFC9439]. >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] "Configuring...configuration" reads oddly. Perhaps >> a rephrase would be beneficial here? >> >> Original: >> * Configuring functionality/capability configuration of ALTO >> services. >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions/comments related to >> Table 2: >> >> a) Looking at the references for R6: please review the section >> number citation for RFC 7971 (Section 3.3 "ALTO Focus and Scope"). >> Should this instead point to Section 3.4 "Monitoring ALTO"? (The >> only mention of the word "fail" is in Section 5.2.2.) >> >> b) We have updated to add a third column to the table for the >> requirement number. Please let us know any objections. >> >> c) Note also that we have used the same table structure for R8 in >> Section 4.3 with this document as the reference. Please let us >> know any objections. >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "standard". Is the intended meaning >> that the related solution "has not yet been standardized" or "has >> not become a Standards Track RFC"? >> >> Original: >> However, it does not contain any configuration for the >> communication among ALTO servers because the related solution >> has not become a standard. >> >> Perhaps: >> However, it does not contain any configuration for the >> communication among ALTO servers because the related >> solution has not yet been standardized. >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "node" or "choice" or some other noun follow >> "The source-params" in this text? >> >> Original: >> * The "source-params" to specify where and how to query the >> data. >> --> >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] In the following, should "R-3" be made "R3" or "R5- >> 3" >> (there is no R-3 in Section 4.2)? >> >> Original (Section 5.4.2): >> To satisfy R5-2 and R-3 in Section 4.2... >> >> and >> >> Original (Section 5.4.2): >> To satisfy R-3 in Section 4.2... >> --> >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] We have a few questions about the Descriptions >> listed in Table 4 in Section 5.4.2: >> >> a) "configured to" reads strangely. Should this be made >> "configured by" or "configured with"? Note that this appears more >> than once in the document. >> >> Original: >> Used to notify high memory utilization >> of the resource configured to an ALTO >> server instance. >> >> b) For both descriptions, who is being notified? Please consider >> rephrasing. >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions related to the YANG >> module(s): >> >> a) We note that both "ietf-alto" and "ietf-alto-stats" do not list >> the authors as contacts (only WG Web and WG List). See Section >> 4.8 of RFC >> 9907 for: >> >> The "contact" statement MUST be present. If the module is >> contained in a document intended for Standards Track status, then >> the WG web and mailing information SHOULD be present, and the >> main document author or editor contact information SHOULD be >> present. >> >> Please let us know how to update. >> >> b) We see several uses of "Reference of". Should these be made >> "Reference to" or "Reference for"? >> >> For example: >> description >> "Reference of an inline EE certificate to authenticate >> the TLS client."; >> >> c) Please review the section numbers listed in the reference >> clause for "alto-costmap-params". Currently, it cites Sections >> 11.2.2 and >> 11.3.2 of RFC 7285. Should this instead be made Sections 11.2.3 >> and 11.3.2? >> >> d) Please review the section number listed in the reference clause >> for "alto-endpointprop-params". Currently, it cites Section 11.5. >> Should this instead be made Section 11.4 or 11.4.1? >> >> e) In "alto-endpointprop-params", should "Endpoint-cost-service- >> specific configuration" instead say "Endpoint property service"? >> >> f) Note that the "ietf-alto" YANG module has been updated per the >> formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. >> >> default false -> default "false" >> if-feature alto-client -> if-feature "alto-client" >> if-feature alto-server -> if-feature "alto-server" >> >> g) Note that the "example-alto-data-source" YANG module has been >> updated per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know >> any concerns. >> >> key name -> key "name" >> >> h) Note that the "example-alto-alg" YANG module has been updated >> per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any >> concerns. >> >> Original: >> + '= "ietf-datastores:operational"' >> { >> >> Current: >> + '= "ietf-datastores:operational"' { >> >> ... >> Original: >> leaf topo-name { >> type leafref { >> path '/alto:alto/alto:alto-server/alto:data-source' >> + '[alto:source-id' >> + ' = current()/../source-datastore]' >> + '/alto:source-params' >> + '/ex-alto-ds:yang-datastore-source-params' >> + '/ex-alto-ds:target-paths/ex-alto-ds:name'; >> >> Current: >> leaf topo-name { >> type leafref { >> path "/alto:alto/alto:alto-server/alto:data-source" >> + "[alto:source-id" >> + " = current()/../source-datastore]" >> + "/alto:source-params" >> + "/ex-alto-ds:yang-datastore-source-params" >> + "/ex-alto-ds:target-paths/ex-alto-ds:name"; >> --> >> >> >> 10) <!--[rfced] Section 7.2. Should mentions of "similar to num- >> msg-max" >> be updated to instead say "similar to num-upd-msg-max"? We only >> see the former in description clauses. >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!--[rfced] [AD] We have the following questions/comments >> related to the Security Considerations section: >> >> a) We have updated the text to attempt to match the most recent >> version of the Security Considerations template at >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> wiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fops%2Fyang-security- >> guidelines&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7 >> 228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >> C0%7C639173167943224697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8XXD3aut9ROnO%2BTUmbZ2ct8h1gvIy4VRJKC5 >> 1GXQcD0%3D&reserved=0. Please review these changes carefully and >> let us know any objections/concerns. >> >> In particular, please review if a list of RFCs needs to be added >> to the "These modules use groupings..." paragraph. >> >> b) We have included some informative reference entries to match >> the guidance at the template above. We have also removed the >> normative reference entry for RFC 6242 for the same reason. >> >> c) Please review whether any text related to RPC or action >> operations should be included. According to the wiki page, there >> should either be the boilerplate paragraph or "There are no >> particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." We see neither. >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!--[rfced] Should "access of" be made "access to" or "access >> for" in the following? >> >> Original: >> Likewise, this data node can be manipulated to prevent access >> of >> legitimate ALTO clients. >> --> >> >> >> 13) <!--[rfced] In the following, "configuration to" reads oddly. >> Please rephrase. >> >> Original: >> This subtree provides configuration to select a logging system >> to >> capture log messages generated by an ALTO server. >> --> >> >> >> 14) <!--[rfced] [AD] In "example-alto-alg" (Appendix A.4), we see >> the following BCP 14 keyword: >> >> Original: >> The referenced YANG datastore MUST be... >> >> However, according to Section 3.6 of RFC 9907: >> "Example YANG modules and example YANG fragments MUST NOT >> contain >> any normative text, including any key words from [RFC2119] and >> [RFC8174]." >> >> Please let us know how to update. >> --> >> >> >> 15) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions related to >> abbreviation use throughout the document: >> >> a) We don't see any uses of CDNi in RFC 9241. We have updated to >> use CDNI consistently throughout the document. Please let us know >> any objections. >> >> b) We note the use of both ALTO O&M and ALTO OAM. Please review >> and confirm that this variation is intentional. >> >> c) Please note that we have added the following to the list of >> Acronyms and Abbreviations in Section 3 in order to smooth their >> expansions in running text or in a module: >> >> CA - Certificate Authority >> EE - End Entity >> PSK - Pre-Shared Key >> --> >> >> >> 16) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions related to >> terminology use throughout the document: >> >> a) Please review the capitalization of "whois" as we frequently >> see WHOIS or WhoIs. >> >> b) Please note that we have used the following forms consistently >> throughout the document. Please let us know any concerns. >> >> resource ID >> data source ID >> network map >> cost map >> entity property map >> endpoint cost service >> filtered >> incremental update >> >> c) We note "ALTO protocol" vs. "ALTO Protocol". Would you like to >> make these instances uppercase (per RFCs 7285, 9240, 9241, and >> 9569) for consistency? >> >> the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol (2 >> instances) >> the base ALTO protocol [RFC7285] >> the ALTO protocol is extensible >> --> >> >> >> 17) <!--[rfced] We have the following questions related to >> references: >> >> a) We note that example-alto-server-discovery contains a pointer >> to RFC 2622, but no citation exists in the document and no >> reference entry exists in the References section. Please let us >> know if there is somewhere in the prose we could add a citation >> and if an entry in the Informative References section is >> appropriate. >> >> b) We note that RFCs-to-be 10009 and 10010 are listed in the >> normative references section. However, we only see pointers to >> them in the example module. Looking at Section 3.2.1 of RFC 9907, >> we see: >> >> "Example YANG modules and example YANG fragments MUST NOT >> contain any >> normative text, including any key words from [RFC2119] and >> [RFC8174]." >> >> Please review and let us know if updates are necessary. >> >> Note that RFC 8641 is also only used in that example and is listed >> as an informative reference. >> --> >> >> >> 18) <!--[rfced] The following is a list of the terms that appear >> in <tt> tags throughout the document. We note that many appear >> without the tags as well. Please review that use of these terms >> is as intended and consistent with your intention. Updates may be >> made directly to the edited XML file if that is easier for the >> authors. >> >> <tt>algorithm</tt> >> <tt>auth-client</tt> >> <tt>authentication</tt> >> <tt>data-source</tt> >> <tt>datastore</tt> >> <tt>internet-routing-registry</tt> >> <tt>l3-unicast-cluster-algorithm</tt> >> <tt>netconf</tt> >> <tt>oauth2</tt> >> <tt>peeringdb</tt> >> <tt>protocol</tt> >> <tt>resource-params</tt> >> <tt>resource</tt> >> <tt>restconf</tt> >> <tt>server-discovery-manner</tt> >> <tt>server-discovery</tt> >> <tt>target-paths</tt> >> <tt>yang-datastore</tt> >> --> >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >> the online Style Guide >> <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fwww.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C >> 02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c >> 17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6391731679432609 >> 13%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C >> &sdata=AhHw39SNlaaRUDlcXQ8tsBfNvtVCf1PCMajU%2BbFfMfM%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> 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. >> >> Megan Ferguson and Karen Moore >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> On Jun 17, 2026, at 11:07 AM, RFC Editor via auth48archive >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Final Review for RFC-to-be 10012 <draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang> >> >> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously >> 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; >> see the Unavailable Authors section >> (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfc-publication-process%23unavailable- >> authors&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228 >> 744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0% >> 7C639173167943278636%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRyd >> WUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ% >> 3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q%2FkBen9AXeXhNtv7fMa%2BHOaL%2Bqek0697VGi >> zh90cx4g%3D&reserved=0). >> >> 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> trustee.ietf.org%2Flicense- >> info&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744 >> de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6 >> 39173167943294787%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs >> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D% >> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G9XjD2kFoO2tRsJZhNVDpcLOR6toN8SNjGFjdXD7pt4% >> 3D&reserved=0). >> >> * 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml- >> vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7 >> 228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >> C0%7C639173167943310517%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZHnkaifsSl%2Bw5fxElbQ22%2B%2Bs4knyIzoc >> jw5MjaioTC4%3D&reserved=0>. >> >> * 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 an archival mailing >> list >> to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC >> editorial >> queue; it is not an active discussion list: >> >> * More info: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh- >> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7 >> Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d >> 20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943325998%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU >> 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yd5gWvQxu1JBr8G%2FYGmarmsuW4Ve >> UOw3lpEfwZ6mhTc%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * The archive itself: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C >> 02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c >> 17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6391731679433377 >> 23%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C >> &sdata=u9AL%2FVY7ivI8emp8Bc%2Bgx0UPZBf%2FtXZsKHJtTTpa11c%3D&reserv >> ed=0 >> >> * 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada >> ir%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b4 >> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943349952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gtV0yBOa1Wud9 >> HbY7JIsxEdtrp8XHyuc9tIqhwYUd5I%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucad >> air%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b >> 40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943361889%7CUnknown%7CTWFp >> bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi >> IsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KIgsQNYcEnx0 >> zt2KJSLvd%2BKpfT%2FkOFbCha7maK20t5E%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada >> ir%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b4 >> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943372324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rvDRRftmYjL5W >> aaW9PJ7kP%2BsquF84tUFBnfFTXFwBXw%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc- >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada >> ir%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b4 >> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943382388%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LhlGr0KJEZOcF >> ELcvKQUJfr4%2Fw%2Ba7AX4YhoNUS0rsOQ%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Diff file of the text: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012- >> diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3c72 >> 28744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C >> 0%7C639173167943392514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR >> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf >> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QheUVh3YHeu1j6i9GCtiM8I9myTWcuLkXsHxTO% >> 2BH4wI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012- >> rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c3 >> c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0 >> %7C0%7C639173167943402600%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki >> OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj >> oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7FGJxacPl9Tym5gElhhP16ZGlKjOVxvIFvgk >> GXdfAq8%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc10012- >> xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Ce82c >> 3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C >> 0%7C0%7C639173167943417187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGk >> iOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI >> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2qt2bA7b13FAnGcmfelU%2FPQibGkP%2FiP >> FwgSxprya6Dw%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> Details on the status of your Final Review are here: >> >> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >> queue.rfc-editor.org%2Ffinal- >> review%2Frfc10012%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com >> %7Ce82c3c7228744de9256508decc9c17e1%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f >> 5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639173167943430722%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0 >> eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbC >> IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=shWDPLoz8XKJedeuR1Gj0AfTc6pm >> hAdVHmcFf7T7uHI%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC 10012 (draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang) >> >> Title : YANG Data Models for the Application-Layer >> Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol >> Author(s) : J. Zhang, >> D. Dhody, >> K. Gao, >> R. Schott, >> Q. Ma >> WG Chair(s) : Qin Wu, Mohamed Boucadair >> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani >> >> -- >> auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
