Hi, Happy new year to all of you.
I approve the publication. Brgds, Stephane -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@amsl.com> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2024 5:07 PM To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: Madison Church <mchu...@amsl.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>; Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; mpls-...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; ts...@cisco.com; James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 <draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-12> for your review Hi Jeff, Thanks for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page. We will wait to hear from your coauthors before continuing with the publication process. Happy holidays! RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 20, 2024, at 10:13 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > I approve the publication. > > Many thanks and happy holidays! > > Cheers, > Jeff > >> On Dec 20, 2024, at 08:08, Madison Church <mchu...@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> Acee - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files below to reflect >> your proposed changes. >> >> Please review the files carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make >> changes once the document has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.xml >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-rfcdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-auth48diff.html >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702 >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/mc >> >>> On Dec 19, 2024, at 1:54 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Madison, >>> >>> I only have a couple minor editorial changes. >>> >>> Acee-Lindems-iMac-2:Desktop acee$ diff -c rfc9702-orig.txt >>> rfc9702.txt >>> *** rfc9702-orig.txt Thu Dec 19 14:32:29 2024 >>> --- rfc9702.txt Thu Dec 19 14:49:03 2024 >>> *************** >>> *** 85,91 **** >>> the routing RIB data model [RFC8349] to provide operational state for >>> various MSDs [RFC8662] for the MPLS data plane. The module augments >>> the base MPLS model with a list of various types of Node MSDs as well >>> ! as various types of MSDs on links. >>> >>> The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management >>> Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. >>> --- 85,91 ---- >>> the routing RIB data model [RFC8349] to provide operational state for >>> various MSDs [RFC8662] for the MPLS data plane. The module augments >>> the base MPLS model with a list of various types of Node MSDs as well >>> ! as various types of Link MSDs. >>> >>> The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management >>> Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. >>> *************** >>> *** 116,124 **** >>> >>> As defined in [RFC8491], a Link MSD is the number of SIDs supported >>> by a node's link, while a Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by >>> ! the node across all its interfaces. The module defines lists of MSDs >>> ! with different MSD Types for a node and links. Please note that >>> ! these are read-only data as per the node's hardware capability. >>> >>> 3. Tree for IETF MPLS MSD Types YANG Module >>> >>> --- 116,124 ---- >>> >>> As defined in [RFC8491], a Link MSD is the number of SIDs supported >>> by a node's link, while a Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by >>> ! the node across all its links. The module defines lists of MSDs >>> ! and their MSD Types for a node and its links. Please note that >>> ! these are read-only data nodes exposing a node's hardware capability. >>> >>> 3. Tree for IETF MPLS MSD Types YANG Module >>> >>> *************** >>> *** 246,252 **** >>> identity srh-max-sl { >>> base msd-base-srh; >>> description >>> ! "The Maximum Segment Left MSD type."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 9352: IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing >>> over the IPv6 Data Plane"; >>> --- 246,252 ---- >>> identity srh-max-sl { >>> base msd-base-srh; >>> description >>> ! "The Maximum Segments Left MSD type."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 9352: IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing >>> over the IPv6 Data Plane"; >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2024, at 9:52 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@amsl.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Yingzhen and Acee, >>>> >>>> Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the files and posted them >>>> below. All of our questions have been addressed. Please see one followup >>>> comment in this thread under question 3. >>>> >>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >>>> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >>>> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >>>> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >>>> publication process. >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.xml >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-rfcdiff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-auth48diff.html >>>> >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702 >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> RFC Editor/mc >>>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2024, at 6:57 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi RFC Editor, >>>>> >>>>> See a couple places where a response is needed. >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 13, 2024, at 12:40 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for working on this document. Please see my reply below inline. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the Abstract, I'm thinking of a few minor changes: >>>>>> old: >>>>>> This document defines two YANG data modules. The first is the >>>>>> initial version of the IANA-maintained YANG module for Maximum >>>>>> Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) Types, which includes >>>>>> identities for both the MPLS data plane and Segment Routing over >>>>>> IPv6 (SRv6) data plane. The second augments the IETF MPLS YANG >>>>>> model to provide support for MPLS MSDs as defined in RFCs 8476 and 8491. >>>>>> new: >>>>>> This document defines two YANG modules. The first module is the >>>>>> initial version of the IANA-maintained YANG module for Maximum >>>>>> Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) Types, which includes >>>>>> identities for both the MPLS data plane and Segment Routing over >>>>>> IPv6 (SRv6) data plane. The second module augments the IETF MPLS >>>>>> YANG model to provide support for MPLS MSDs as defined in RFCs 8476 and >>>>>> 8491. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Yingzhen >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 6:00 PM <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>> Authors, >>>>>> >>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has >>>>>> been updated to expand abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 >>>>>> ("RFC Style Guide"). Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> YANG Data Model for Maximum SID Depth Types and MPLS Maximum SID >>>>>> Depth >>>>>> >>>>>> Current: >>>>>> YANG Data Model for Maximum Segment Identifier (SID) Depth Types >>>>>> and MPLS Maximum SID Depth >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: How about: >>>>>> YANG Data Model for Maximum Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) >>>>>> Types and MPLS MSD >>>>> >>>>> I like Yingzhen's suggestion better. >>>>> >>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that >>>>>> appear in the title) for use on >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: how about "MSD Types"? >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that two RFCs in the reference clauses in >>>>>> the iana-msd-types module do not appear in the reference section of the >>>>>> RFC. >>>>>> May a sentence be added before the YANG module stating that it >>>>>> refers to the following RFCs? For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (where [RFC8664] and [RFC8814] would be added as Informative >>>>>> References) >>>>>> >>>>>> Alternatively, you could let us know a different place to cite >>>>>> [RFC8664] and [RFC8814] in this document. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: The proposed text is fine. Should it be added to Section 4 >>>>>> before section 4.1? >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor? >>>> >>>> [rfced] We have added the sentence to Section 4.1 (IANA-Maintained Module >>>> for MSD-Types). >>>> >>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, the Security Considerations section has been >>>>>> updated to match >>>>>> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines. >>>>>> If the differences from the approved template should be >>>>>> reinstated, please let us know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically, this text is no longer present: >>>>>> ... without the "none" authentication option, Transport Layer >>>>>> Security (TLS) [RFC8446] with mutual X.509 authentication, and >>>>>> HTTPS with HTTP authentication (Section 11 of [RFC9110]). >>>>>> >>>>>> The normative reference [RFC9110] has been removed, as it was not >>>>>> cited elsewhere in the document. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: this is ok. >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We suggest naming the column "Data Plane" no >>>>>> hyphen, as the hyphen seems unnecessary. If you agree, we will >>>>>> ask IANA to update the registry accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current: IANA has added a "Data-Plane" column >>>>>> Suggested: IANA has added a "Data Plane" column [and other >>>>>> instances] >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: this is fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] FYI, "N/A" has been removed from Table 1 in order >>>>>> to match the IANA registry, which does not use "N/A" for empty fields. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: ok. >>>>>> >>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] RFC 7950 is not cited anywhere in this document. >>>>>> Please let us know where it should be cited; otherwise, this >>>>>> reference will be removed from the Normative References. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", >>>>>> RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, >>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: the reference to RFC 7950 can be added to Section 1. >>>>>> Old: >>>>>> There are two YANG modules defined in this document. >>>>>> New: >>>>>> There are two YANG modules [RFC7950 ]defined in this document. >>>>> >>>>> Spacing: >>>>> There are two YANG modules [RFC7950] defined in this document. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>>>>> >>>>>> a) We have received guidance from Benoît Claise and the YANG >>>>>> Doctors that the terms "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are >>>>>> preferred. Please review the usage in this document. For >>>>>> example, should text be updated as follows or otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract >>>>>> Original: This document defines two YANG data modules. >>>>>> Perhaps: This document defines two YANG modules. >>>>>> [Section 1 already uses the latter.] >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: The second augments the IETF MPLS YANG model to provide ... >>>>>> Perhaps: The second augments the IETF MPLS YANG data model to provide >>>>>> ... >>>>>> [And the same for similar text in Section 1.] >>>>>> >>>>>> Acknowledgements >>>>>> Original: The YANG model was developed ... >>>>>> Perhaps: The YANG data model was developed ... >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: I'm ok with the proposed changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> b) FYI, we have updated the terms below to use the form on the >>>>>> right, as this is how they appear in the referenced documents (e.g., RFC >>>>>> 8491). >>>>>> >>>>>> node MSD vs. Node MSD >>>>>> link MSD vs. Link MSD >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: Thanks for making them consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: I think we're good here. >>>>>> >>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations >>>>>> upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). >>>>>> Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure >>>>>> correctness. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> [Yingzhen]: they look good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Editor/mc/ar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2024, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>> >>>>>> Updated 2024/12/11 >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Author(s): >>>>>> -------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>>>> >>>>>> Your document has now entered 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 >>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). >>>>>> >>>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing >>>>>> list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> list: >>>>>> >>>>>> * More info: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l >>>>>> 2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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, >>>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9702.xml >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.pdf >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-diff.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-rfcdiff.html (side by >>>>>> side) >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9702-xmldiff1.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> RFC9702 (draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-12) >>>>>> >>>>>> Title : YANG Data Model for Maximum SID Depth Types and MPLS >>>>>> Maximum SID Depth >>>>>> Author(s) : Y. Qu, A. Lindem, S. Litkowski, J. Tantsura >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de >>>>>> Velde >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
