Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] May we clarify that the modules in [RFC9834] would be used
to manage ACs across the network?
Original:
In order to avoid service interference and redundant
information in various locations, a service provider may expose an
interface to manage ACs network-wide using
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit].
Perhaps:
In order to avoid service interference and redundant
information in various locations, a service provider may expose an
interface to manage ACs network-wide using the modules in
[RFC9834].
-->
2) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 3 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other
figures in the document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update the CEs in
Figure 3 to match the other figures in the document?
If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated accordingly.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] We have a couple questions about this paragraph:
Original:
This approach is consistent with the design in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] where an AC service
reference, called 'ac-svc-name', is used to indicate the names of
AC services. As per [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang],
when both 'ac-svc-name' and the attributes of 'attachment-
circuits' are defined, the 'ac-svc-name' takes precedence.
a) [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] does not appear to contain
the term "ac-svc-name". It does contain the term "ac-svc-ref". Should
"ac-svc-name" be updated to "ac-svc-ref"?
b) Additionally, we note that this text was indented. As it is unclear to
us why it was indented, we have removed the indentation. Was the intent for
this to be a "Note"? If yes, this text can be used in the <aside> element,
which is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less
important or tangential to the content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
Perhaps:
| This approach is consistent with the design in
| [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] where an AC service
| reference, called 'ac-svc-ref', is used to indicate the names of
| AC services. As per [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang],
| when both 'ac-svc-ref' and the attributes of 'attachment-
| circuits' are defined, the 'ac-svc-ref' takes precedence.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] May we clarify that the "ietf-ac-ntw" module in [RFC9835]
is used?
Original:
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit] can be
also used to access AC-related details that are bound to the target
SAP (Figure 12).
Perhaps:
The "ietf-ac-ntw" module [RFC9835] can be also used to access
AC-related details that are bound to the target SAP (Figure 12).
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork to sourcecode in Section 5. Please
confirm that this is correct.
In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of each sourcecode
element has been set correctly.
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) FYI - We have added expansion 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.
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
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 for consistency?
attachment circuit (AC)
Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN)
-->
7) <!-- [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, at 10:50 PM, [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/rfc9836.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9836-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9836
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9836 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue-14)
Title : A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network
Models with Attachment Circuits
Author(s) : M. Boucadair, R. Roberts, S. Barguil Giraldo, O. Gonzalez de
Dios
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]
