Hi Qiufang, The hyphen was not included here because adverbs ending in "ly" are not typically hyphenated in the RFC Series, even in the attributive position (e.g., "conditionally present system configuration”, not "conditionally-present system configuration”).
However, if “conditionally present” and “immediately present” are specific terms that should be hyphenated, we can add those hyphens back into the document. Please let us know how you would like to proceed or if any further updates are needed. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jul 10, 2026, at 8:41 PM, maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Alanna, > > Thanks for the update. It looks good to me. One comment: > In 2.2. Conditionally Present > The conditionally present system configuration is generated in > <system> based on specific conditions being met in a system. > > I think it should be: > The conditionally-present system configuration is generated in > <system> based on specific conditions being met in a system. > > Agreed? > > Best regards, > Qiufang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 6:46 AM > To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AD] Final Review: RFC-to-be 10016 > (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) in XML > > Hi Qiufang, > > We have updated the files per your request. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > Please see the Final Review status page for this document here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/ > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Jul 9, 2026, at 8:20 PM, maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Alanna, >> >> Thanks a lot for the update. I do have some further comments: >> >> 1. Sec.2.1 Would this be better? >> OLD: Always present refers to system configuration that is generated in >> <system> when the device is powered on... >> NEW: It refers to system configuration that is generated in <system> when >> the device is powered on... >> Or: >> NEW: The always-present system configuration is generated in <system> when >> the device is powered on... >> >> 2. Sec.2.2 Similarly >> OLD: Conditionally present refers to system configuration that is generated >> in <system> based on specific conditions being met in a system. >> NEW: It refers to system configuration that is generated in <system> based >> on specific conditions being met in a system. >> Or: >> NEW: The conditionally-present system configuration is generated in <system> >> based on specific conditions being met in a system. >> >> 3. Appendix A.1 >> OLD: these applications are an immediately present system configuration. >> NEW: these applications are immediately present system configuration. >> >> 4. Appendix B.1, the first paragraph is awkward, how about: >> OLD: >> When the device is powered on, suppose the system provides an always-present >> loopback interface (named "lo0") that is not explicitly configured in >> <running>. Thus, no configuration for interfaces appears in <running> and >> the content of <system> is: >> NEW: >> When the device is powered on, assume the system provides an always-present >> lookback interface named "lo0" that is not explicitly configured in >> <running>. As a result, no interface configuration appears in <running>, and >> the content of <system> is as follows: >> >> 5. Appendix B.3, to be consistent: >> OLD: The contents of <running> remain unchanged: >> NEW: The content of <running> remains unchanged: >> >> 6. Appendix B.4 >> OLD: And the content of <intended>, which represents a merged results of >> <running> and <system>, is as follows: >> NEW: And the content of <intended>, which represents the merged result of >> <running> and <system>, is as follows: >> >> >> 7. Appendix B.4 >> In the last XML snippet, the enabled leaf inside lo0 list entry should be >> tagged as origin=default, sorry for not recognizing this issue earlier: >> OLD: >> <interfaces xmlns="urn:example:interfacemgmt" >> xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin" >> or:origin="or:intended"> >> <interface or:origin="or:system"> >> <name>lo0</name> >> <type>loopback</type> >> <enabled>true</enabled> >> <ip-address>127.0.0.1</ip-address> >> <ip-address>::1</ip-address> >> <description>system-defined interface</description> </interface> >> <interface> >> <name>et-0/0/0</name> >> <type or:origin="or:system">ethernet</type> >> <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled> >> <ip-address>192.168.10.10</ip-address> >> <speed>10Mb</speed> >> <description>pre-provisioned interface</description> </interface> >> </interfaces> >> NEW: >> <interfaces xmlns="urn:example:interfacemgmt" >> xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin" >> or:origin="or:intended"> >> <interface or:origin="or:system"> >> <name>lo0</name> >> <type>loopback</type> >> <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled> >> <ip-address>127.0.0.1</ip-address> >> <ip-address>::1</ip-address> >> <description>system-defined interface</description> </interface> >> <interface> >> <name>et-0/0/0</name> >> <type or:origin="or:system">ethernet</type> >> <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled> >> <ip-address>192.168.10.10</ip-address> >> <speed>10Mb</speed> >> <description>pre-provisioned interface</description> </interface> >> </interfaces> >> >> Best regards, >> Qiufang >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alanna Paloma [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 1:41 AM >> To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AD] Final Review: RFC-to-be 10016 >> (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) in XML >> >> 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-4Q9l2USx >>> I >>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>> >>> * 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]
