Hi Alanna, > On Sep 2, 2025, at 3:16 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Med and Mahesh*, > > *Mahesh - As the AD please review and approve of the following updates: > > ) Section 2: Added sentences to the definitions of “network controller” and > “service orchestrator" > ) Section 9.1: Added RFC 4271 as a normative reference > ) Appendix A.10.1: Removed lines from the sourcecode in Figures 51 and 52 > > See this diff file for the changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-lastdiff.html
The updates look good to me. Thanks > > > Med - Thank you for your replies. The files have been updated accordingly. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9834-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > We will await approvals from each author and *Mahesh prior to moving this > document forward in the publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9834 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > >> On Sep 2, 2025, at 1:48 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, all, >> >> Please see inline. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Envoyé : mardi 12 août 2025 07:48 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; opsawg- >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Objet : [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9834 <draft-ietf-opsawg-teas- >>> attachment-circuit-20> for your review >>> >>> >>> 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) >>> --> >> >> [Med] ACK. >> >>> >>> >>> 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]. >>> --> >> >> [Med] Please change to: >> >> NEW: >> >> The >> customers can then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer reference that >> they will include in their AC service requests. Likewise, a customer >> may learn whether 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] Maybe intervert LxNM and LxVPN lines as L2VPN/L3VPN are expanded under >> the LxVPN entry. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] Please add these sentences in RFC9833 as well. Thanks. >> >>> >>> >>> 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). >>> --> >> >> [Med] I like this proposed change. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] Agree with the proposed change. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] WFM. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >> >> [Med] OK. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] OK. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] What about? >> >> NEW: >> All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by the >> provider server. >> >>> >>> >>> 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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b >>> 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264598416%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e >>> yJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo >>> iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cx6IQ6OaZMLvmqmHwGd5C >>> vjuIt50wxgfB3KshFD5zKw%3D&reserved=0>. >>> --> >> >> [Med] There are not yang types defined in 4271. I suggest to make this >> change in 5.2.5.3.2 >> >> OLD: >> An AC service activation with BGP routing SHOULD include at least the >> customer's AS Number (ASN) and the provider's ASN. >> >> NEW: >> An AC service activation with BGP routing [RFC4271] SHOULD include at least >> the >> customer's AS Number (ASN) and the provider's ASN. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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%7Cea709b5 >>> a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >>> C0%7C638905745264620450%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >>> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >>> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=69L%2F86vy9UkR0tFteHgL5cM6A33WW%2FKM5M >>> a4%2B2vxRD4%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. >> >> [Med] This falls under >> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines#reusable-groupings-from-other-modules-section. >> >> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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? >> >> [Med] Yes. >> >>> >>> 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 >>> Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d >>> 20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264633975%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU >>> 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >>> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m6P3pykRPnilWKbVPfbzjqL%2B0p86 >>> mKF2uw8lOGPsnio%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]. >>> --> >>> >> >> [Med] The use of aside element is what was intended. Thanks. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] ACK. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253 >>> b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264646990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb >>> XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWF >>> pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IHOD%2B8YtJXxoipfVBswaiPE >>> CR1gzEPEzBDMKXKNJENY%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%7Cea709b5a707c >>> 491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C >>> 638905745264658689%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU >>> sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D >>> %3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F8vPI5iRoTIjKZC8fjLg7Ajcg%2F6eK1oTok5nB2i >>> viHk%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. >>> --> >> >> [Med] ACK >> >>> >>> >>> 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) >> >> [Med] Yes, please. >> >>> >>> >>> 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) >>> --> >>> >> >> [Med] OK. >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> [Med] Bo replied to this one. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> [Med] I have a preference for "Child AC" and "Parent AC". >> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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%7C >>> 02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963 >>> dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6389057452646702 >>> 33%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >>> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C >>> &sdata=ZZ6E%2B8ki5ig%2BrdNZLJZWw7CfM7p5kxCaCYxjmnmhwg4%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 >> >> [Med] We can update this one to "do not have built-in ..." >> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >>> Fwww.rfc- >>> editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com% >>> 7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5 >>> d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264682324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0e >>> U1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI >>> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=T2Bl3yPvWeCztumARviiHTX8FhTuo >>> sjBazaQvLWG%2FhM%3D&reserved=0). >>> >>> 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >>> trustee.ietf.org%2Flicense- >>> info&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea709b5a707c4 >>> 91f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6 >>> 38905745264694233%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUs >>> IlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D% >>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CWVt8m%2F4dwVATSJakUJQPtmZkK9DzBpUmSWA5z307K >>> M%3D&reserved=0). >>> >>> * 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 >>> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml- >>> vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea709b5 >>> a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 >>> C0%7C638905745264705959%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOn >>> RydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoy >>> fQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0E4WQv3AfVKCZ9TIE5DF0mgnGlU9Dm0vzRC5SN >>> fuKLM%3D&reserved=0>. >>> >>> * 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >>> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh- >>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7 >>> Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d >>> 20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264717353%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU >>> 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIs >>> IldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bRymJrVkc%2FS3sVrNamHNJDojjmfM >>> MRLttkhKSfCKcIc%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> >>> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F >>> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C >>> 02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963 >>> dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6389057452647291 >>> 71%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA >>> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C >>> &sdata=P7d9k0SuE6%2FvbdDbLRFvsGd4G5BS3zwUXlcIs9DTXno%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * 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://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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40 >>> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264742057%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >>> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8544qgVDrcQPdo >>> c2XOLWOBZKSDkgB1TZ82cE%2FX4HC0I%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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b4 >>> 0bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264754010%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >>> GZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI >>> sIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jAHr6ZnNuX6j8 >>> eL%2FEtePDVv2yyD%2Bhu%2BTGWzR88%2Btl9U%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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40 >>> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264768591%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >>> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tZkZfGJtByc%2B >>> bbLHgAHZK2pgk%2B7pg9amR3MSV4UyiI0%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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40 >>> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264781464%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG >>> Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs >>> IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YJF53pVZEGNOAs >>> YEfChLYwHwBHktzXfCp9t8ZcTQWCY%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.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea709b5a >>> 707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C >>> 0%7C638905745264794196%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR >>> ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf >>> Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qSLHYSAce7hdepUC78GS7mqNqSkMP%2FIMJzuDv >>> tCr5ls%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%7Cea709 >>> b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0 >>> %7C0%7C638905745264807618%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGki >>> OnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj >>> oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xNHgHUz4g%2BLUWjXAPmedJUS2Z6Kt8%2BT6 >>> 0zgbtqG0kXU%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%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cea70 >>> 9b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C >>> 0%7C0%7C638905745264821169%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGk >>> iOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUI >>> joyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hfY0SRFqsA0qjXbuy5v%2FIeXY2yyQF1iJC >>> UceOHtIj7s%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%7Cea709b5a707c491f3a7708ddd963dbcf%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc4 >>> 8b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638905745264834196%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d >>> 8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOI >>> joiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZMwVWjAs59gLIcj2zDB >>> DpCHgaD147af2ArZke%2FcnVsk%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. > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
