IANA, Please make this minor punctuation update in the Registrant Contact field for this XML namespace URI in the “ns” registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-system-datastore.txt>.
Old: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore Registrant Contact: The IESG. New: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore Registrant Contact: The IESG Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jul 15, 2026, at 12:51 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Chong, Qin, and Mahesh*, > > Thank you for your approvals. They’ve been noted here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/ > > *Mahesh - We have updated the text per your suggestion. As you noted that > more changes to the template are actively being discussed, we will hold > publication of this document until we hear further from you. > > 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) > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Jul 15, 2026, at 10:42 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, >> >> I have looked at the changes you have made for question #5. Most of the >> changes look good to me. However, there is more change that we have to make >> (and something that I need to update the wiki also with) is the following: >> >> In the second paragraph, the template text is getting updated to say the >> following. Note, this is still being debated, and we can expect some more >> changes to the text. >> >> >> OLD: >> (1) have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH) >> [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and (2) have to use >> mutual authentication. >> >> NEW: >> >> (1) have to use a secure transport layer and (2) have to use >> mutual authentication (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252], >> TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]). >> >>> On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:34 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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) >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
