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-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, >> 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
