[ + Med ] I believe that this is fine (and good!), but I'm adding Med as the current OpsAD for formal approval.
W On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:22 AM, Madison Church < mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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-editor@ > rfc-editor.org>, netmod-...@ietf.org <netmod-...@ietf.org>, netmod-chairs@ > ietf.org <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, kwat...@juniper.net <kwatsen@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
