Hi Authors, *Warren, Authors - Thank you for your replies! We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742).
*Warren - As Responsible AD for this document, please review and approve the following addition to the Normative References as per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-guidelines-for-the-use-of-formal-languages-in-ietf-specifications-20011001/. [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November 2008, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 13, 2025, at 2:00 PM, Clyde Wildes <cl...@clydewildes.com> wrote: > > Madison, > > Approved from me! > > Thanks, > > Clyde > >> On Mar 19, 2025, at 8:56 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> Joe - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. >> >> All - Please review the updated files and let us know if you approve the >> document in its current form. Once we receive approvals from each person >> listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move forward in the publication >> process. >> >> Updated files (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml >> >> Diff files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >> only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status page, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 >> >> Thank you! >> RFC Editor/mc >> >>> On Mar 18, 2025, at 3:58 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Madison, it chatting with our AD, we would like to make a few small changes >>> to the text to add clarity. Essentially, this involves changing some >>> instance of “configuration” to “management”. >>> First, the title of the document becomes, “A YANG Data Model for Syslog >>> Management”. Then, in the abstract: >>> OLD: >>> This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a syslog >>> process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who >>> implement syslog collectors in their systems. >>> NEW: >>> This document defines a YANG data model for the management of a syslog >>> process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who >>> implement syslog collectors in their systems. >>> Then, in Section 1: >>> OLD: >>> This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] configuration data model >>> NEW: >>> This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model >>> Then, in the YANG module in Section 5.1: >>> OLD: >>> This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog >>> configuration. >>> NEW: >>> This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog management. >>> Joe >>> From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 at 15:24 >>> To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani >>> <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, cl...@clydewildes.com <cl...@clydewildes.com>, >>> kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com<kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com> >>> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, netmod-...@ietf.org >>> <netmod-...@ietf.org>, netmod-cha...@ietf.org <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, >>> kwat...@juniper.net <kwat...@juniper.net>, Warren Kumari >>> <war...@kumari.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-33> for >>> your review >>> Hi Authors, >>> >>> Joe - Thank you for the confirmation! >>> >>> All - Now that our questions have been addressed, 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. >>> >>> Updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml >>> >>> Updated diff files: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive edits) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >>> only) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status page, see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/mc >>> >>>> On Mar 14, 2025, at 1:53 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> [rfced] Thank you for pointing this out (and apologies for missing this >>>> earlier). We have updated the Security Considerations section to match >>>> what appears in 8407bis [1]. >>>> >>>> Additionally, please note that we have removed the following text from the >>>> Security Considerations to match 8407bis. If this text should be re-added >>>> to the paragraph (or if there are any further updates needed), please let >>>> us know. >>>> [JMC] You know, I don’t think it’s needed in light of the boilerplate text >>>> indicating an impact to operations if these data nodes are not protected. >>>> I’m good with the sec considerations as they read now. >>>> Joe >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
