This document is ready, I agree to approve it Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> 于 2026年7月14日周二 下午11:42写道：
> Hi Qiufang, > > Thank you for confirming. Your approval has been noted: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/ > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Jul 13, 2026, at 11:15 PM, maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, Alanna, > > > > Thanks for the clarification. I agree to keep the current text without > hyphens, no changes are needed for those lines. I do not have any other > revisions to propose, please mark my approval. Thanks. > > > > Best regards, > > Qiufang > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alanna Paloma [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 11:47 PM > > 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, > > > > 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) <maqiufang1= > [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]
