Hi Qiufang, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-auth48diff.html (Final Review changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-auth48rfcdiff.html (Final Review changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. > 5) <!--[rfced] *[AD] We have altered some text in the Security Considerations > section to match the boilerplate text at > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. Also note that > paragraph 4 varies from the template (we attempted to make it match more > closely). Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or > if the text is agreeable as is. > --> > [Qiufang] Mahesh will comment this , but why not replace [YANG-GUIDE] with > [RFC9907]? ) Note that we are awaiting Mahesh’s word on this. The citation has been updated from "[YANG-GUIDE]" to "[RFC9907]". For the Final Review status of this document, please see: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/ Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jul 7, 2026, at 11:39 PM, maqiufang (A) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Please see below inline with [Qiufang]... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 7:35 AM > To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]>; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [AD] Re: Final Review: RFC-to-be 10016 > (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) 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 review question #5 below. > > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing > YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for example: > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated. > > Current: > System-Defined Configuration > > Perhaps: > A YANG Data Model for System-Defined Configuration > --> > [Qiufang] The Current is better. This draft defines more than a YANG data > model. > > 2) <!--[rfced] Per guidance from Section 2 of RFC 8340, we moved the lines in > the YANG tree diagram (in Section 7.1) over two spaces to the left. Please > review and let us know of any objections. > --> > [Qiufang] Okay. No objections. > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Because XML examples are present in this document, we added a > citation to W3C in Section 7.3 and a corresponding entry under the > Informative References section. Please let us know if this is agreeable or > if you prefer otherwise. > > Original: > The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could > be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation. The example uses > the "example-application" fictional data model defined in > Appendix A.1. > > Current: > The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could > be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation. The example > uses XML [W3C.XML1.0] and the "example-application" fictional data > model defined in Appendix A.1. > --> > > [Qiufang] Perhaps: > OLD: > The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could > be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation. The example > uses XML [W3C.XML1.0] and the "example-application" fictional data > model defined in Appendix A.1. > NEW: > The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could > be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation. The example > uses the "example-application" fictional data > model defined in Appendix A.1 and the Extensible Markup Language (XML) > [W3C.XML1.0] encoding. > > > 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - In Section 7.3, note that we moved the example over > three spaces to the left because > "xmlns:sysds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore">" > was 3 characters over the limit. > --> > [Qiufang] Okay. > > > 5) <!--[rfced] *[AD] We have altered some text in the Security Considerations > section to match the boilerplate text at > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. Also note that > paragraph 4 varies from the template (we attempted to make it match more > closely). Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or > if the text is agreeable as is. > --> > [Qiufang] Mahesh will comment this , but why not replace [YANG-GUIDE] with > [RFC9907]? > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module examples have been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > > a) example-application has been updated as follows: > > prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app > prefix "inet" -> prefix inet > > b) example-acl has been updated as follows: > > prefix "ex-acl" -> prefix ex-acl > prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app > prefix "inet" -> prefix inet > > c) example-interface has been updated as follows: > > prefix "ex-if" -> prefix ex-if > prefix "inet" -> prefix inet > key name -> key "name" > > d) example-interface-management has been updated as follows: > > prefix "ex-ifm" -> prefix ex-ifm > prefix "inet" -> prefix inet > --> > > [Qiufang] All above are good. > > 7) <!--[rfced] We note that the following system configuration terms are > hyphenated. Are these specific terms that should always appear hyphenated? We > are confirming because adverbs ending in "ly" are not typically hyphenated in > the RFC Series, and we could not find the hyphenated forms of these terms in > past RFCs. > > If the hyphens are not essential, we would remove them from > "immediately-present" and "conditionally-present", and we would hyphenate > "always present" only when in attributive position (i.e., when followed by a > noun). Please let us know your preference. > > always-present > conditionally-present > immediately-present > --> > [Qiufang] Okay to remove the hyphen. > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] 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. > > Access Control List (ACL) > Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) > --> > [Qiufang] Looks good to me. > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > [Qiufang] I do not think any changes are needed. Thanks. > > I do have one additional comment, in the Acknowledgements section, could you > please update the following names: > OLD: Balazs Lengyel > NEW: Balázs Lengyel > > OLD: Martin Bjorklund > NEW: Martin Björklund > > OLD: Juergen Schoenwaelder > NEW: Jürgen Schönwälder > > Best Regards, > Qiufang > > Thank you. > > Alanna Paloma and Karen Moore > RFC Production Center > > > On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:24 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10016 <draft-ietf-netmod-system-config> > > 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://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > 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 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://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/rfc10016.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 10016 (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) > > Title : System-defined Configuration > Author(s) : Q. Ma, Ed., > Q. Wu, > C. Feng > WG Chair(s) : Kent Watsen, Lou Berger > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
