Hi Bo, Thank you for your reply. All of our document-specific questions have now been addressed; however, there are still 3 cluster-wide questions that have not yet been answered.
We will await responses to those outstanding cluster-wide questions as well as approvals from each author prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-lastdiff.html (last version to this one) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 29, 2025, at 12:37 AM, Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > Thank you for the updates; they look good to me. > Please also see my replies in line with [Bo Wu]. > > Regards, > Bo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 2:18 AM > To: Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> > Cc: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > opsawg-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > auth48archive <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9835 > <draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16> for your review > > Hi Bo, > > Thank you for your reply. The files have been updated accordingly. Please > note that we have some follow-up questions. > > We ask that you review these previously sent questions and explicitly let us > know if/what further updates are needed. > >> 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. >> --> > [Bo Wu] I confirm that all “type” attributes are set to the preferred value. > Thanks. > > >> 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 >> --> > [Bo Wu] After review, I recommend keeping the terms unchanged. “Hold Time” is > the BGP-specific interval, while “holdtime” is the BFD holddown to prevent > state flapping; the distinction also aligns with RFC 9182, so I think no > edits are needed. > > Thanks, > Bo > > --- > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-lastdiff.html (last > version to this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author > prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > >> On Aug 26, 2025, at 7:49 PM, Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, >> >> Thank you for the updates; they look good to me. >> On the other questions, I agree with the proposed changes if my co-authors >> raise no concerns. >> >> Thanks, >> Bo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 12:41 AM >> To: Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> >> Cc: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS >> <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; RFC Editor >> <[email protected]>; Mahesh Jethanandani >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; opsawg-chairs >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9835 >> <draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16> for your review >> >> Hi Bo, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. >> >> Additionally, please note that 7 of our previously sent document-specific >> questions have not yet been addressed. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html (comprehensive >> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48diff.html >> (AUTH48 changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >> changes side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Aug 26, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> I have a particular suggestion on #6, “Network Slice Service vs. Network >>> Slice”, and I recommend adopting “RFC 9543 Network Slice Service(s)” >>> throughout this document as per RFC 9543, whenever the term “Network Slice >>> Service” is used, we should use “RFC 9543 Network Slice Service.” >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bo >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:32 AM >>> To: mohamed.boucadair <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS >>> <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; Wubo (lana) <[email protected]> >>> Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>; Mahesh Jethanandani >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; opsawg-chairs >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9835 >>> <draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-16> for your review >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your response to our previously >>> sent questions. >>> >>> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication >>> process. >>> >>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:46 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>> >>>> Thank you for confirming. We’ve noted your approval: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 >>>> >>>> Alanna Paloma >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 11:21 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Allana, >>>>> >>>>> The changes look good to me. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 9:36 AM, Alanna Paloma >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mahesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We’ve updated the Security Considerations >>>>>> section accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.xml >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.txt >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.html >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-diff.html >>>>>> (comprehensive >>>>>> diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48diff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes) >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9835-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>>>> >>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9835 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 4:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, please add the statement to the end of the section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> —> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please do something similar to what I recommended on the other >>>>>>> document. Let us move the two paragraphs to the beginning of the >>>>>>> Security Considerations section, and before the line “This section is >>>>>>> modeled after ….”. That statement should be further modified as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>> This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of >>>>>>> [YANG-GUIDELINES]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>> The remaining section is modeled after the template described in >>>>>>> Section 3.7.1 of [YANG-GUIDELINES]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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-type >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> ) 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-4Q9 >>>>>>>> l >>>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>> USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>> [email protected] -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
