Hi Alanna, To question #8 on inclusive language, I went to the NIST document to review options for “black-hole”, but I did not see any. Does the RFC Editor have any recommendations for what alternate word could be used?
Thanks. > On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:46 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, AD, > > * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #5. > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] To avoid back-to-back use of "For example", may we update > the second occurrence as follows? > > Original: > For example, a > server can be a network controller or a router in a provider > network. > > For example, a bearer request is first created using a name which > is assigned by the client, but if this feature is supported, the > request will also include a server-generated reference. > > Perhaps: > For example, a > server can be a network controller or a router in a provider > network. > > As another example, a bearer request is first created using a name that > is assigned by the client, but if this feature is supported, the > request will also include a server-generated reference. > --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "to" to "for"? > > Original: > * 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is to all ACs that belong to the > same site. > > Perhaps: > 'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is for all ACs that belong to the > same site. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following reference is cited only in > the YANG module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup between the references > section and the text, may we add the following reference entry to > the Normative References and add it to the list of citations preceding > the YANG module? > > Original: > This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], and > [RFC9181]. > > Perhaps: > This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], > [RFC9181], and [IEEE_802.1Q]. > ... > [IEEE_802.1Q] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area > Networks-Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q- > 2022, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, December 2022, > <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498>. > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module has been updated per the > formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the > Security Considerations that differs from the template on > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. Please > review and let us know if the text is acceptable. Specifically: > > - Paragraph 5 matches the template except for the last sentence > is an addition. Paragraph 6 does not seem to correspond to the template. > > - This sentence is not present, although the template says to include it. > "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." > > If it should be added, should it be at the end of the section? > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element > in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred > values for "type" > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] Abbreviation > > a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) > > > b) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used > throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon > first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document? > > Attachment Circuit (AC) > Service Function (SF) > --> > > > 8) <!-- [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. > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > black-hole > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ap/ar > > > On Aug 11, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/08/11 > > 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-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/rfc9833.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9833 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15) > > Title : A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits > Author(s) : M. Boucadair, R. Roberts, O. Gonzalez de Dios, S. Barguil > Giraldo, B. Wu > WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani > > Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
