Hi Alice, Apologies for the delay to reply as I was out of office.
The proposed change #20 works for me. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Alice Russo <[email protected]> > Envoyé : mardi 12 août 2025 19:55 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Mahesh Jethanandani > <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; > auth48archive <[email protected]> > Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9834 <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas- > attachment-circuit-20> for your review > > > Authors, > > One additional note on > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www.rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada > ir%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b4 > 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529541200%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb > GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI > sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5o4XfvYjCRRqT > C8hF%2FjPjwcuffhYzlhbZOaHRXN0vns%3D&reserved=0 (and the other > formats). > > 20) FYI, we changed 'choosen' to 'chosen' here; please let us know > if that was not the intention. (There are 4 instances in this > document; zero instances in the other documents in this cluster.) > > ORIGINAL: > "name": "a-name-choosen-by-client", > > CURRENT: > "name": "a-name-chosen-by-client", > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > > On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Authors, AD, > > > > * Mahesh (as AD), please reply to #13. > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML > file. > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] In the RFC's title, we suggest removing the > single > > quotes and hyphens. Other expansions of "ACaaS" in the document > and > > the related documents would be updated accordingly. Is the > suggested > > title acceptable? (This is similar to how "Software as a > Service (SaaS)" > > typically does not appear with hyphens when used as a noun.) > > > > Original: > > YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a- > Service > > (ACaaS) > > > > Suggested: > > YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a > Service > > (ACaaS) > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!--[rfced] In the second sentence below, does the customer > > retrieve "a reference" or "an indication" or something else? > > > > Original: > > The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer > reference that > > they will include in their AC service requests. Likewise, a > customer > > may retrieve whether their bearers support a synchronization > > mechanism such as Sync Ethernet (SyncE) [ITU-T-G.781]. > > > > Perhaps: > > The customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer > reference that > > they will include in their AC service requests. Likewise, a > customer > > may retrieve a reference if their bearers support a > synchronization > > mechanism such as Sync Ethernet (SyncE) [ITU-T-G.781]. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have reformatted some of the definitions > in the > > "Conventions and Definitions" section to reflect what appears in > > RFCs-to-be 9833 and 9835. Please review and let us know any > changes. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!--[rfced] We note that the definitions for "Network > controller" > > and "Service orchestrator" in RFC-to-be 9835 each have an > additional > > sentence that does not appear in the definition in this > document. > > Should this sentence be added? (Specifically, "One or > multiple..." and > > "A service orchestrator may interact..." are the additional > > sentences.) > > > > This document (current): > > Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible > for the > > management of the service provider network. > > ... > > Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that > interacts > > with the customer of a network service. > > > > A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the > attachment > > circuits, the PE selection, and requesting the activation > of the > > requested service to a network controller. > > > > RFC-to-be 9835: > > Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible > for the > > management of the service provider network. One or > multiple > > network controllers can be deployed in a service provider > network. > > ... > > Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that > interacts > > with the customer of a network service. > > > > A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the > attachment > > circuits, the Provider Edge (PE) selection, and requesting > the > > activation of the requested services to a network > controller. > > > > A service orchestrator may interact with one or more > network > > controllers. > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Since "L2VPN" and "L3VPN" are defined prior to > these > > terms listed and to make the definitions more concise, may we > update > > to "LxVPN"? Note that this would also match the text in RFC-to- > be 9835. > > > > Original: > > Service provider network: A network that is able to provide > network > > services (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network Slice > > Services). > > > > Service provider: An entity that offers network services > (e.g., > > Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3 VPN, or Network Slice Services). > > > > Perhaps: > > Service provider network: A network that is able to provide > network > > services (e.g., LxVPN or Network Slice Services). > > > > Service provider: An entity that offers network services > (e.g., > > LxVPN or Network Slice Services). > > --> > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Figure 5 uses "CE#1" and "CE#2", while other > figures in > > the document use "CE1" and "CE2". May we update the CEs in > Figure 5 to > > match the other figures in the document? > > > > If so, both artworks (svg and ascii-art) will be updated > accordingly. > > --> > > > > > > 7) <!--[rfced] To avoid repetition of "future", may we remove > "in the > > future" from this sentence? > > > > Original: > > Future placement criteria > > ('constraint-type') may be defined in the future to > accommodate > > specific deployment contexts. > > > > Perhaps: > > Future placement criteria > > ('constraint-type') may be defined to accommodate specific > deployment > > contexts. > > --> > > > > > > 8) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "when > requesting a bearer"? > > > > Original: > > A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a > > combination thereof, or a custom information when requesting a > > bearer. > > > > Perhaps: > > A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a > > combination thereof, or custom information. > > --> > > > > > > 9) <!--[rfced] To avoid redundancy, may we remove "actually"? > Note > > that there are a number of other places throughout the document > with > > similar phrasing, which would also be updated. > > > > Original: > > 'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the > bearer > > actually was enabled. > > > > Perhaps: > > > > 'actual-start': Reports the actual date and time when the > bearer > > was enabled. > > --> > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "by an identifier" to > "of an identifier"? > > > > Original: > > All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by > the > > provider server by an identifier. > > > > Perhaps: > > All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by > the > > provider server of an identifier. > > --> > > > > > > 11) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 4271 is only cited in the > > "ietf-ac-svc" YANG module. In order to have a 1:1 matchup > between the > > references section and the text, may we add it to the RFCs > listed > > prior to the YANG module and add a normative reference for it? > > > > Original: > > This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC9181], > [RFC8177], > > and [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac]. > > > > Perhaps:: > > This module uses types defined in [RFC4271], [RFC6991], > [RFC9181], [RFC8177], > > and [RFC9833]. > > ... > > [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., > "A > > Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, > > DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwww.rfc- > editor.org%2Finfo%2Frfc4271&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40ora > nge.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b > 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529565692%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e > yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo > iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KIn0QpMZUupuuF%2BvLpt > %2BTjD5OFMJwlWbbsDyFrOn6R8%3D&reserved=0>. > > --> > > > > > > 12) <!--[rfced] FYI, the YANG module "ietf-ac-svc" has been > updated > > per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any > concerns. > > (No changes were needed for "ietf-bearer-svc".) > > --> > > > > > > 13) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that there is some text in the > Security > > Considerations section that differs from the template on > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fops%2Fyang-security- > guidelines&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d > 7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 > C0%7C638906181529580119%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn > RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy > fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MKaaIc24v2hlthpzLWpocr4Z%2FZqdBMu39k0w > Nk4L7Gw%3D&reserved=0>. > > Please review and let us know if the text is acceptable. > > > > For example: > > - Paragraph 3, the first 2 sentences are not from the template: > > > > "Servers MUST verify that requesting clients are entitled to > access > > and manipulate a given bearer or AC. For example, a given > customer > > must not have access to bearers/ACs of other customers." > > > > - This sentence is not present: > > "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." > > If it should be added, should it be at 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. > > --> > > > > > > 14) <!--[rfced] "Step (3)" does not seem accurate here. Does it > refer > > to item 3 in the list of assumptions, i.e., "3. The customer > > provisions the networking logic..."? If so, may it be updated as > follows? > > > > Original: > > * The Cloud Provider for the configuration per Step (3) > above. > > > > Perhaps: > > * The Cloud Provider for the configuration per item 3 above. > > --> > > > > > > 15) <!--[rfced] 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, would you like this text > to be > > in an <aside> element, which is defined as "a container for > content > > that is semantically less important or tangential to the content > that surrounds it" > > > (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fen%2Frfcxml- > vocabulary%23aside&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7 > C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d > 20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529594009%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU > 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs > IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fRCQJ6CJjbEZh%2FgE%2FU3RzbAH7n > N%2B3u%2BA7UUcN6JkyS8%3D&reserved=0). > > > > Original: > > The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the > installed BGP > > base (including by some Cloud Providers). Note that MD5 > suffers > > from the security weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of > [RFC6151] > > and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952]. > > > > Perhaps: > > | Note: The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the > installed > > | BGP base (including by some Cloud Providers). Note that > MD5 suffers > > | from the security weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of > [RFC6151] > > | and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952]. > > --> > > > > > > 16) <!--[rfced] To clarify the citation of > > I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue (RFC-to-be 9836), we have > added "AC > > Glue" preceding it. Please review and let us know if further > updates are needed. > > > > Original: > > In any case, the parent > > AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a > reference by > > end-to-end service models for VPN configuration such as > > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue], Slice Service > > [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang], etc. > > > > Current: > > In any case, the parent > > AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a > reference by > > end-to-end service models for VPN configuration such as > > AC Glue [RFC9836], Slice Service [NSSM], etc. > > --> > > > > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork to sourcecode in > Sections > > 5.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, > > 5.2.5.3.1, 5.2.5.3.2, 5.2.5.3.3, 5.2.5.3.4, 5.2.5.3.5, > 5.2.5.3.6, > > 5.2.5.4, 5.2.5.5, and 5.2.5.6 and Appendix B. Please review > whether > > this is correct. We note that a YANG tree diagram is typically > held in > > a sourcecode element > (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fen%2Frfcxml- > vocabulary%23sourcecode&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange. > com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253 > b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529607404%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb > XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWF > pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2QwYIEqyMEP2VAv70U7kMUsmn > N5sES4Z8nUDRbc2SgU%3D&reserved=0). > > > > In addition, please review the "type" attribute of each > sourcecode > > element in the XML file to ensure correctness. > > > > The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode- > types&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e > 49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C > 638906181529620686%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU > sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D > %3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4z89Nq4bhfPU0pB%2F81S3kJC%2BtwVzxHKNv%2BODj > vPqyUQ%3D&reserved=0>. > > 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. > > --> > > > > > > 18) <!--[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? > > > > attachment circuit (AC) > > Customer Edge (CE) > > Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) > > Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) > > Service Function (SF) > > > > > > b) FYI - We have added expansions for the following > abbreviations per > > Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > > > Customer VLAN (CVLAN) > > IP Address Management (IPAM) > > Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) > > Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) > > Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) > > --> > > > > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > > > a) 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. > > > > Network Slice Service vs. Slice Service vs. IETF Network Slice > Service > > > > b) To reflect how "parent AC" is consistently lowercase, may we > update > > instances of "Child AC" to "child AC"? Note that there is mixed > usage > > throughout the document. > > --> > > > > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion > of the > > online Style Guide > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > Fwww > > .rfc- > editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7 > > > C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c > 9704 > > > b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529633994% > 7CUn > > > known%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIl > AiOi > > > JXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LUCo > UMfz > > ZB6IB%2BuV2o7eBxLBj%2FI9O1aNxM9Lge8OMKo%3D&reserved=0> > > 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: > > natively > > --> > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/ap/ar > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2025, [email protected] wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > Files > > ----- > > > > The files are available here: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai > > > r%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40 > bfbc > > > 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529647435%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8ey > > > JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi > TWFp > > > bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oOQIVNe2Yh6KgsMSN6n7HWpF%2 > BFNa > > 0f0OmtBEMNQqXbQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucada > > > ir%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b4 > 0bfb > > > c48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529660435%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb > 3d8e > > > yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo > iTWF > > > pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RXoNUnldc8ZFmrNQlpuCQCHUm > 2otE > > pSL6H71GoRDSoU%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai > > > r%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40 > bfbc > > > 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529674141%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8ey > > > JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi > TWFp > > > bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=03%2FTkH5%2Bsn8pzhfhagnPo4 > JY35 > > ofNRuH5SoCImn3XRs%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc- > editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai > > > r%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40 > bfbc > > > 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529688875%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8ey > > > JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi > TWFp > > > bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9pvkKBh3CpxVcwUfGpAc00u7n2 > qUmE > > MnmxJJ04I8q1w%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834- > diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.bo > > > ucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20a > f34b > > > 40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529701961%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > bGZs > > > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIk > FOIj > > > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Vn72VCMAimeuU0Ke%2F% > 2Fmm > > PxegUPca78TckyyujarZBJ8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834- > rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed > > > .boucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a > 20af > > > 34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529714818%7CUnknown%7CT > WFpb > > > GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI > sIkF > > > OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=F7PjVPkktjpORQ8Rg > QjSq > > 9rUSVpnVQa3JAsvrJ%2F7Lhg%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9834- > xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmohame > > > d.boucadair%40orange.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7 > a20a > > > f34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529727880%7CUnknown%7C > TWFp > > > bGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi > IsIk > > > FOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=19L7TJOc8umDbuZU > DqTY > > i3E0cuvn5wxPhpI%2FBK3bI4Q%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > www. > > rfc- > editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9834&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40o > > > range.com%7C1ae738d7b78e49f71d2708ddd9c9704b%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc4 > 8b92 > > > 53b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638906181529740777%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ > FbXB > > > 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpb > CIsI > > > ldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6KGcxdThHYx4yA9q%2B2lEDiGxsoNG3 > 9V%2 > > FTcfkrdM%2BTD0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9834 (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-20) > > > > Title : YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment > Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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]
