Hi Bo, Thank you for your approval. We’ve noted it on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833
Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 4, 2025, at 7:22 PM, Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > The document looks good to me. I have no further comments. > Thanks, > Bo > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 7:05 AM > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > Cc: mohamed.boucadair <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; rrobe...@juniper.net; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS > <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>; samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com; Wubo > (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com>; opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; rro...@ciena.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9833 > <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15> for your review > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thank you for your confirmation. We’ve removed that sentence from the > document. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastdiff.html (last > version to this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > We will await approvals from Richard, Oscar, and Bo prior to moving this > document forward in the publication process. > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Sep 4, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, >> >>> On Sep 4, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Med and Mahesh*, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. We have noted Mahesh’s approval on the AUTH48 >>> status page: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9833 >>> >>> >>> *Mahesh - Regarding the use of “black-hole”, Med has noted a preference to >>> keep it in the sentence as is: >>> >>>> s/black-hole/discard will be redundant with the previous sentence… but >>>> more importantly will lead to a useless example given that we do have: >>>> CURRENT: >>>> "Indicates an action to discard traffic for the corresponding >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> destination. For example, this can be used to black-hole >>>> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>>> traffic.”; >>>> The example was meant to refer to a well-known routing practice. >>>> Blakholing is discussed in many RFCs out there, e.g., • rfc7999: >>>> BLACKHOLE Community • rfc5635: Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering >>>> with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) • rfc3277: Intermediate >>>> System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole Avoidance • etc. >>>> My preference would be to keep the sentence as it is, but if this is >>>> really problematic I suggest we simply drop the example. >> >> Agree with Med, that the second statement is made redundant when >> "black-hole" is replaced with “discard”. Keeping the statement is >> problematic, even if the term was used in older drafts, and therefore, as >> suggested by Med, it should be removed. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> >>> >>> We have not made updates to this yet. Please let us know if you agree with >>> Med’s proposal to keep the sentence as is or if his other suggestion of >>> simply dropping the sentence is preferred. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2025, at 10:02 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mahesh, all, >>>> s/black-hole/discard will be redundant with the previous sentence… but >>>> more importantly will lead to a useless example given that we do have: >>>> CURRENT: >>>> "Indicates an action to discard traffic for the corresponding >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> destination. For example, this can be used to black-hole >>>> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^ >>>> traffic.”; >>>> The example was meant to refer to a well-known routing practice. >>>> Blakholing is discussed in many RFCs out there, e.g., >>>> • rfc7999: BLACKHOLE Community >>>> • rfc5635: Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering with Unicast Reverse >>>> Path Forwarding (uRPF) >>>> • rfc3277: Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient >>>> Blackhole Avoidance >>>> • etc. >>>> My preference would be to keep the sentence as it is, but if this is >>>> really problematic I suggest we simply drop the example. >>>> Thanks. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> De : Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Envoyé : mercredi >>>> 3 septembre 2025 20:23 À : Alanna Paloma >>>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Cc : RFC Editor >>>> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET >>>> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; rrobe...@juniper.net; OSCAR GONZALEZ >>>> DE DIOS <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>; >>>> samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com; Wubo (lana) >>>> <lana.w...@huawei.com>; opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs >>>> <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>; rro...@ciena.com; >>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Objet : Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9833 >>>> <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-15> for your review >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Alanna, thanks for your recommendations. >>>> I would suggest that we use “discard” in the sentence to say - “For >>>> example, this can be used to discard traffic”. Authors, if you have >>>> concerns with the change, please speak up. >>>> Cheers. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2025, at 11:16 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>> >>>> Some alternatives to “black-hole” can be “null route”, “discard route”, >>>> “drop route”, “sinkhole”, or “void route”. >>>> >>>> For context, this is how “black-hole" appears in this document (it is used >>>> once in the YANG module): >>>> "Indicates an action to discard traffic for the corresponding >>>> destination. For example, this can be used to black-hole >>>> traffic.”; >>>> >>>> Please let us know which alternate word you would prefer and we will >>>> update the files accordingly. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Alanna Paloma >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 2, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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-4Q9l2US >>>> xIAe6P8O4Zc >>>> >>>> * 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>> mjethanand...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre >>>> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire >>>> ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant >>>> susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce >>>> message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >>>> >>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or >>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be >>>> distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>>> delete this message and its attachments. >>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >>>> modified, changed or falsified. >>>> Thank you. >>> >> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> mjethanand...@gmail.com > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
