Hi Yuehua and Bruno, Thank you both for your replies. We have noted your approval and incorporated our edits into the updated files below per Bruno’s guidance. In addition to our updates, note that we also added <em> tags to italicize term "ThreeWay" for consistency with RFCs 9692 and 9696.
The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.xml The updated diffs have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 Once we receive approvals from Shaowen and Xufeng, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:04 PM, Bruno Rijsman <brunorijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear RFC editors, > > Thank you very much for your careful review and final edits. > > I have carefully reviewed all the changes in the diff, and I agree with them. > > I also agree with your suggested changes to fix the comments in items #1 > through #11 below, and I have read the style guide mentioned in #12. > > I approve this RFC for publication. > > Also my sincere thanks to the co-authors for their work on this document. > > — Bruno Rijsman > >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 3:14 AM, 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] We have updated the abbreviated title (which appears in the >> running >> header of the PDF) as follows. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >> >> Original: >> RIFT YANG Model >> >> Current: >> RIFT YANG Data Model >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] The Terminology section (Section 3.1) states that terms and >> their >> definitions are copied from RFC 9692. However, we note that definitions >> in this section contain a mix of sentences directly from RFC 9692, >> paraphrased sentences from RFC 9692, as well as mirrored definitions >> missing words throughout. If there are no objections, we will revise the >> Terminology section in this document to accurately reflect the >> definitions that appear in RFC 9692. Please let us know any concerns. >> >> For example: >> >> "TIE" in RFC 9692 (Original): >> This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element". TIEs are exchanged >> between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such as links and address >> prefixes. A TIE has always a direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes >> abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when dealing with TIEs in the northbound >> representation and South-TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the >> southbound equivalent. TIEs have different types such as node and prefix >> TIEs. >> >> "TIE" in this document (Original): >> "Topology Information Element" are exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe >> parts of a network such as links and address prefixes. A TIE has always a >> direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used >> when dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs >> (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs have >> different types such as node and prefix TIEs. >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that the following paragraph appears in Sections 2.1 >> and >> 2.3. To avoid repetition, may we remove the duplicate text from one >> section or the other? >> >> Original (Sections 2.1 and 2.3): >> The RIFT YANG module augments the /routing/control-plane-protocols/ >> control-plane-protocol path defined in the ietf-routing module. This >> model augments the routing module to add RIFT as a control plane >> protocol. It then offers the ability to create a list of instances, >> which it does by declaring 'list rift'. Multiple instances of the >> protocol are supported by the module by giving each instance a unique >> name. >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we corrected 'sourth' to 'south' (3 instances). >> >> From the original: >> 465: | | +-ro total-num-routes-sourth? >> 2418: leaf total-num-routes-sourth { >> 2422: "The total number of sourth routes."; >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.3.9 of RFC 9692 is titled "Northbound >> TIE Flooding Reduction". May we rephrase as follows? >> >> Original: >> Some features can be used to enhance protocol, such as BFD >> [RFC5881], flooding-reducing section 6.3.9 [I-D.ietf-rift-rift]. >> >> Perhaps: >> Some features can be used to enhance protocols, such as BFD [RFC5881], >> with flooding reduction (Section 6.3.9 of [RFC9692]). >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for clarity? >> >> Original: >> Unexpected TIE and neighbor's layer error should be notified. >> >> Perhaps: >> Unexpected TIE and neighbor layer errors should be notified. >> --> >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the YANG >> Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred. >> We have updated the title of Section 3 accordingly. Please review >> usage of "YANG model" within this document. >> --> >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] In the YANG module, please clarify "system id using pattern" >> in the description of system-id. (In text as "System ID" to match >> RFC-to-be 9692.) >> >> Original: >> description >> "This type defines RIFT system id using pattern, >> the system id looks like: 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10"; >> >> Perhaps: >> description >> "This type defines the pattern for RIFT System IDs. >> An example of a System ID is 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10."; >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] Please note that the YANG module has been updated per >> the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. >> --> >> >> >> 10) <!--[rfced] Section 4. The text has been updated to exactly >> match the template for YANG module security considerations >> (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines). Please review. >> If additional changes are needed, please let us know. Specifically, >> the following text was updated. >> >> Original (paragraph 3): >> Writable data node represent configuration of each instance, node, >> interface, etc. These correspond to the following schema node: >> >> Current: >> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ >> vulnerability: >> >> However, should it be updated to singular because one item is listed? >> Perhaps: >> This is the schema node and its sensitivity/vulnerability: >> >> >> Original (paragraph 11): >> Specifically, the >> following operations have particular sensitivities/ vulnerabilities: >> >> Current: >> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ >> vulnerability: >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence; the original does not parse. >> >> Original: >> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for >> the neighbor connection broken, will lead to the permanent connection >> broken. >> >> Perhaps: >> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for >> the broken neighbor connection, will break the connection >> permanently. >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [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. >> >> RFC Editor/mc/ar >> >> >> On Jan 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/01/15 >> >> 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-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, >> 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/rfc9719.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9719 (draft-ietf-rift-yang-17) >> >> Title : YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) >> Author(s) : Z. Zhang, Y. Wei, S. Ma, X. Liu, B. Rijsman >> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura >> 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
