Authors, AD,
* Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #4.
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 4 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other
figures in the document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update the CEs in
Figure 4 to match the other figures in the document?
If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated accordingly.
-->
2) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "to" to "for"?
Original:
'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is to all peer SAPs that belong to
the same site.
Perhaps:
'bw-per-site': The bandwidth is for all peer SAPs that belong to
the same site.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] FYI, this YANG module has been updated per the
formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the
Security Considerations section 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.
For example:
- This sentence is not present; should it be added?
"There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations."
If so, should it be at the end of the section?
(Your reply to this question will also be applied to RFC 9836.)
>From the guidelines page:
"If the data model contains any particularly sensitive RPC or action
operations, then those operations must be listed here, along with an
explanation of the associated specific sensitivity or vulnerability
concerns. Otherwise, state: 'There are no particularly sensitive RPC or
action operations.'"
- The last two paragraphs (after the readable nodes section) do
not seem to be within a section of the template.
-->
5) <!-- [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.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be
used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.
Hold Time vs. holdtime
Network Slice Service vs. Network Slice
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) 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 for consistency?
attachment circuit (AC)
Customer Edge (CE)
Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN)
Provider Edge (PE)
Service Attachment Point (SAP)
b) 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.
Class of Service (CoS)
-->
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.
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/ap/ar
On Aug 11, 2025, [email protected] 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
* [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/rfc9835.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9835 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16)
Title : A Network 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
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
