Hi Mahesh, Thank you for your confirmation. We’ve removed that sentence from the document.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastdiff.html (last version to this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9833-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) We will await approvals from Richard, Oscar, and Bo prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 4, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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
