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 <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 3 septembre 2025 20:23
À : Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>
Cc : RFC Editor <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Wubo
(lana) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; opsawg-chairs
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
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
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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, [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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/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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
