Hi Sarah, Thanks for the quick turnaround. It looks good to me. Acee > On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:25 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Yingzhen and Acee, > > Thank you for providing the updated yang tree module. I've updated the files > as you requested. > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make > changes once it has been published as an RFC. > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > most recent version. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/st > >> On Jul 30, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> I had made that change for some of the other lines in the tree but I guess I >> missed some lines since I did it manually. Let's use the non-wrapped version >> that Yingzhen generated. >> >> Then I believe we can also get rid of this note and reference: >> >> This document uses the graphical representation of data models per >> [RFC8340]. NOTE: '\' line wrapping is per [RFC8792]. >> >> >> [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, >> "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and >> RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792>. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> Sorry for the late response. >>> >>> For the YANG tree in section 7.1, instead of using "\" for line wrapping, I >>> regenerated the tree with line length equal to 69. Please see attached and >>> let me know what you think. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yingzhen >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 7:34 AM Sarah Tarrant >>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>> Hi Yingzhen, >>> >>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your approval prior to moving >>> forward in the publication process. >>> >>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >>> only) >>> >>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >>> most recent version. >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/st >>> >>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 11:33 AM, Sarah Tarrant >>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Acee, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and >>>> marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825). >>>> >>>> We will await approval from Yingzhen prior to moving forward in the >>>> publication process. >>>> >>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >>>> only) >>>> >>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >>>> most recent version. >>>> >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> RFC Editor/st >>>> >>>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 11:27 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>> >>>>> I approve this version with the correction of one typo (attached). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 9:03 AM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Acee, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you so much for taking a second, careful look at the diff. I've >>>>>> made the "Sub-TLV" changes you requested and have no further questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> We will await approvals from each you and Yingzhen prior to moving >>>>>> forward in the publication process. >>>>>> >>>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>> changes only) >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view >>>>>> the most recent version. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2025, at 3:13 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You didn't apply my last changes correctly. "Sub-TLV" should be >>>>>>> capitalized when used as a specific sub-TLV, i.e., a proper noun. See >>>>>>> the attached diff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Acee and AD*, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AD* - please see question #7 below. We've included Acee's response >>>>>>>> and updated accordingly, but we still need official AD approval and/or >>>>>>>> edits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that the first paragraph in the Security >>>>>>>>>> Considerations section does not match what appears at >>>>>>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Acee: This is intended. There seems to be confusion here that this >>>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>> is primarily to standardize the YANG module. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we have made some updates in this section to closer >>>>>>>>>> reflect the boilerplate. Please review this section and let us know >>>>>>>>>> if any further updates are necessary. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Acee: Ok. This is a moving target - I took the latest from >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. >>>>>>>>> Note that Med also commented that the security protocols referenced >>>>>>>>> as examples >>>>>>>>> should be informational references. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See Section 8 in >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Acee - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document >>>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that we did use the lowercase "sub-TLV" (instead of >>>>>>>> "Sub-TLV") to match recent past RFCs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While we await AD approval, 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 updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive >>>>>>>> diff) >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>>> changes only) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view >>>>>>>> the most recent version. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2025, at 5:48 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi RFC Editor, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Refer to the attached RFC diff. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2025, at 5:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Authors and AD*, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as >>>>>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *AD, please see question #7 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: >>>>>>>>>> Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>> A Yang Data Model for Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix >>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tags >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. The YANG model augmentations are ancillary to the additional >>>>>>>>> function provided by the OSPF administrative tags. As for you >>>>>>>>> suggestion, note that it is "YANG" and never "Yang". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA" to >>>>>>>>>> "OSPFv2 Extended >>>>>>>>>> Prefix Opaque LSA" to match RFC 7684. Please let us know of any >>>>>>>>>> objections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added line breaks to the YANG tree >>>>>>>>>> diagram as well as a note and reference to RFC 8792 for the '\' >>>>>>>>>> line wrapping. Please review. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't like this - please format as specified in the attached diff. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - As the RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 keywords are not >>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>> within the YANG module, we have removed the keywords boilerplate >>>>>>>>>> paragraph from the module. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module has been updated per the >>>>>>>>>> formatting option of pyang. Please let us know of any concerns. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that the first paragraph in the Security >>>>>>>>>> Considerations section does not match what appears at >>>>>>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is intended. There seems to be confusion here that this document >>>>>>>>> is primarily to standardize the YANG module. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we have made some updates in this section to closer >>>>>>>>>> reflect the boilerplate. Please review this section and let us know >>>>>>>>>> if any further updates are necessary. >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok. This is a moving target - I took the latest from >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. >>>>>>>>> Note that Med also commented that the security protocols referenced >>>>>>>>> as examples >>>>>>>>> should be informational references. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology >>>>>>>>>> appears to >>>>>>>>>> be used interchangeably. Please review these occurrences and let us >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> if/how they may be made consistent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tag vs. admin tag vs. administrative tag >>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. Administrative Tag TLV vs. >>>>>>>>>> administrative tag TLV >>>>>>>>>> E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSA >>>>>>>>>> E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Intra-Area-Prefix LSA >>>>>>>>>> Extended Prefix TLV vs. extended prefix TLV >>>>>>>>>> Prefix Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. prefix admin tag sub-TLV >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok - I've updated all these for consistency. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) >>>>>>>>>> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) >>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I didn't find any violations either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> <ietf-ospf-admin-tags.tree> >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
