Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the abbreviated title (which appears in the
running
header of the PDF) as follows. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
Original:
RIFT YANG Model
Current:
RIFT YANG Data Model
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] The Terminology section (Section 3.1) states that terms and
their
definitions are copied from RFC 9692. However, we note that definitions
in this section contain a mix of sentences directly from RFC 9692,
paraphrased sentences from RFC 9692, as well as mirrored definitions
missing words throughout. If there are no objections, we will revise the
Terminology section in this document to accurately reflect the
definitions that appear in RFC 9692. Please let us know any concerns.
For example:
"TIE" in RFC 9692 (Original):
This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element". TIEs are exchanged
between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such as links and address
prefixes. A TIE has always a direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes
abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when dealing with TIEs in the northbound
representation and South-TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the
southbound equivalent. TIEs have different types such as node and prefix TIEs.
"TIE" in this document (Original):
"Topology Information Element" are exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe
parts of a network such as links and address prefixes. A TIE has always a
direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used
when dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs
(sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs have
different types such as node and prefix TIEs.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] We note that the following paragraph appears in Sections 2.1 and
2.3. To avoid repetition, may we remove the duplicate text from one
section or the other?
Original (Sections 2.1 and 2.3):
The RIFT YANG module augments the /routing/control-plane-protocols/
control-plane-protocol path defined in the ietf-routing module. This
model augments the routing module to add RIFT as a control plane
protocol. It then offers the ability to create a list of instances,
which it does by declaring 'list rift'. Multiple instances of the
protocol are supported by the module by giving each instance a unique
name.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we corrected 'sourth' to 'south' (3 instances).
>From the original:
465: | | +-ro total-num-routes-sourth?
2418: leaf total-num-routes-sourth {
2422: "The total number of sourth routes.";
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.3.9 of RFC 9692 is titled "Northbound
TIE Flooding Reduction". May we rephrase as follows?
Original:
Some features can be used to enhance protocol, such as BFD
[RFC5881], flooding-reducing section 6.3.9 [I-D.ietf-rift-rift].
Perhaps:
Some features can be used to enhance protocols, such as BFD [RFC5881],
with flooding reduction (Section 6.3.9 of [RFC9692]).
-->
6) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for clarity?
Original:
Unexpected TIE and neighbor's layer error should be notified.
Perhaps:
Unexpected TIE and neighbor layer errors should be notified.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the YANG
Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred.
We have updated the title of Section 3 accordingly. Please review
usage of "YANG model" within this document.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] In the YANG module, please clarify "system id using pattern"
in the description of system-id. (In text as "System ID" to match
RFC-to-be 9692.)
Original:
description
"This type defines RIFT system id using pattern,
the system id looks like: 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10";
Perhaps:
description
"This type defines the pattern for RIFT System IDs.
An example of a System ID is 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10.";
-->
9) <!--[rfced] Please note that the YANG module has been updated per
the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] Section 4. The text has been updated to exactly
match the template for YANG module security considerations
(https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines). Please review.
If additional changes are needed, please let us know. Specifically,
the following text was updated.
Original (paragraph 3):
Writable data node represent configuration of each instance, node,
interface, etc. These correspond to the following schema node:
Current:
These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/
vulnerability:
However, should it be updated to singular because one item is listed?
Perhaps:
This is the schema node and its sensitivity/vulnerability:
Original (paragraph 11):
Specifically, the
following operations have particular sensitivities/ vulnerabilities:
Current:
These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/
vulnerability:
-->
11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence; the original does not parse.
Original:
The incorrect modification of authentication, except for
the neighbor connection broken, will lead to the permanent connection
broken.
Perhaps:
The incorrect modification of authentication, except for
the broken neighbor connection, will break the connection
permanently.
-->
12) <!-- [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. -->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mc/ar
On Jan 15, 2025, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/01/15
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
* [email protected] (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).
* [email protected], 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,
[email protected] 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/rfc9719.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9719 (draft-ietf-rift-yang-17)
Title : YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT)
Author(s) : Z. Zhang, Y. Wei, S. Ma, X. Liu, B. Rijsman
WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
