Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.txt

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

We noted that there were conflicts with the existing ietf-ospf.yang and ietf-isis.yang modules which required the constraints. 

> On Oct 13, 2023, at 14:56, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear *AD (Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston, or James Guichard),
> 
> This document is in the AUTH48 state as RFC-to-be 9403.  Please review the diff file as submitted by the Secretariat earlier today, and let us know if it is acceptable to make these updates in RFC-to-be 9403.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2023, at 11:40 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> A new version (-23) has been submitted for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.txt
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.html
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/
>> 
>> Diff from previous version:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23
>> 
>> IETF Secretariat.
>> 
>> 
> 
>> From: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9403 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22> for your review
>> Date: October 2, 2023 at 4:16:54 PM PDT
>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> 
>> Authors,
>> 
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the style of the document title to more
>> closely match that of other YANG RFCs?
>> 
>> Please note that for now we updated the title for this document, as
>> listed in Section 5, to match the current first-page document title.
>> 
>> Original title:
>> RIB Extension YANG Data Model
>> 
>> Original from the module in Section 5: 
>>      reference
>>        "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions.";
>> 
>> Suggested (as originally cited in Section 5; we would revert the
>> change in Section 5 to match)):
>> A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions -->
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  Because only one ietf-routing YANG module is
>> defined in [RFC8349], we changed "modules" to "module" in this
>> sentence, per "the ietf-routing YANG module [RFC8349]" in Section 1.
>> If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text (e.g., perhaps
>> all three relevant modules from RFC 8349 should be listed here and in
>> Section 1?).
>> 
>> Original:
>> The YANG module defined in this document augments the ietf-routing
>> YANG modules defined in [RFC8349], which provide a basis for routing
>> system data model development.
>> 
>> Currently:
>> The YANG module defined in this document augments the ietf-routing
>> YANG module defined in [RFC8349], which provides a basis for routing
>> system data model development. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and 5:  We previously received guidance from
>> Benoit Claise and the YANG Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG
>> data model" are preferred.  We have updated the text to use these
>> forms.  Please review, and let us know any concerns.
>> 
>> Original:
>> Together with YANG modules defined in
>> [RFC8349], a generic RIB YANG model is defined to implement and
>> monitor a RIB.
>> ...
>> 5.  RIB Extension YANG Model
>> 
>> Currently:
>> Together with the ietf-routing YANG
>> module and other YANG modules defined in [RFC8349], a generic RIB
>> YANG data model is defined herein to implement and monitor a RIB.
>> ...
>> 5.  RIB Extension YANG Module -->
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:  We could not parse this sentence.
>> If the suggested text is not correct, please provide clarifying text.
>> 
>> Original:
>> The following tree snapshot shows tag and preference which augment
>> static IPv4 unicast routes and IPv6 unicast routes next-hop.
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> The following tree snapshot shows tag and preference entries that
>> augment static IPv4 unicast route and IPv6 unicast route next hops. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Would you like to add an introductory
>> paragraph listing the references provided in the YANG module?
>> 
>> Original:
>> 5. RIB Extension YANG Model
>> 
>>  <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"
>> 
>> Possibly:
>> 5.  RIB Extension YANG Module
>> 
>>   This YANG module references [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8349], and
>>   [RFC5714].
>> 
>>   <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]" -->
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We checked the module using pyang; it parses successfully.  Note that we have updated the formatting to match the output of pyang with the formatting option.  Please let us know if you have any concerns. 
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  As it appears that a lower preference value
>> is preferable, we updated this sentence (4 instances) as follows.
>> If this is not correct, please provide clarifying text.
>> 
>> Original:
>> Routes with a lower preference next-hop are
>> preferred and equal preference routes result in
>> Equal-Cost-Multi-Path (ECMP) static routes.
>> 
>> Currently (first instance; "ECMP" used thereafter):
>> Routes with a lower next-hop preference value
>> are preferred, and equal-preference routes result in
>> Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) static routes. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Section 6:  We see "RPC (Remote
>> Procedure Call) operation" in Section 2 but do not see any other
>> mention of RPC operations in this document.  Please confirm that
>> the "Some of the RPC operations" paragraph as listed on
>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines> is not
>> applicable to this document (and if it isn't applicable, is the "RPC
>> (Remote Procedure Call) operation" listing in Section 2 still
>> necessary?). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Appendix B:  Per
>> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/formal-languages-use/>,
>> may we cite [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] ("Extensible Markup Language (XML)
>> 1.0 (Fifth Edition)") here and list it as a Normative Reference, per
>> RFC 8349?
>> 
>> Original:
>> The following is an XML example using the RIB extension module and
>> RFC 8349.
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> The following is an XML example [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] using the RIB
>> extension module and module data from RFC 8349.
>> 
>> Under Normative References:
>> [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
>>           Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
>>           F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
>>           (Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
>>           REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
>>           <https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/>. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the note in this document
>> should be in the <aside> element.  It is defined as "a container for
>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>> content that surrounds it"
>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Appendix B:  Would you like to cite
>> RFC 7951 ("JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG") here and add a
>> corresponding reference listing?  If yes, please let us know whether
>> the listing should be Normative or Informative.
>> 
>> Original:
>> The following is the same example using JSON format.
>> 
>> Possibly:
>> The following is the same example using JSON format [RFC 7951].
>> ...
>> [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
>>           RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
>>           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>> online Style Guide at
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> 
>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 14) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
>> this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
>> 
>> ietf-rib-extensions.yang (1 instance /
>>  ietf-rib-extension.yang (20 instances) *
>> 
>>  * Please note that if the plural "extensions" is correct, we will
>>  update this document accordingly and also ask IANA to update their
>>  corresponding pages. -->
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 4:11 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2023/10/02
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  *  [e-mail] (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).
>> 
>>  *  [e-mail], 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, 
>>       [e-mail] 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/rfc9403.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff1.html
>> 
>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>> diff files of the XML.  
>> 
>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.original.v2v3.xml 
>> 
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.form.xml
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9403
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9403 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22)
>> 
>> Title            : RIB Extension YANG Data Model
>> Author(s)        : A. Lindem, Y. Qu
>> WG Chair(s)      : Jeff Tantsura, Yingzhen Qu
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>> 
>>