[auth48] Re: [AD] Final Review: RFC-to-be 10016 (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) in XML

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alanna,

I have looked at the changes you have made for question #5. Most of the changes look good to me. However, there is more change that we have to make (and something that I need to update the wiki also with) is the following:

In the second paragraph, the template text is getting updated to say the following. Note, this is still being debated, and we can expect some more changes to the text.


OLD:
(1) have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH)
[RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and (2) have to use
mutual authentication.

NEW:

(1) have to use a secure transport layer and (2) have to use
mutual authentication (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252],
TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]).

> On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Authors and *AD,
> 
> While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
> 
> *AD, please review question #5 below.
> 
> 
> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs
> containing YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model
> for...", for example:
> 
>  RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)
>  RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types
>  RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy
> 
> Please consider whether the title of this document should be updated.
> 
> Current:
>   System-Defined Configuration
> 
> Perhaps:
>   A YANG Data Model for System-Defined Configuration    
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!--[rfced] Per guidance from Section 2 of RFC 8340, we moved the
> lines in the YANG tree diagram (in Section 7.1) over two spaces
> to the left. Please review and let us know of any objections.
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!--[rfced] Because XML examples are present in this document, we
> added a citation to W3C in Section 7.3 and a corresponding entry
> under the Informative References section.  Please let us know if
> this is agreeable or if you prefer otherwise.
> 
> Original:
>   The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could
>   be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation.  The example uses
>   the "example-application" fictional data model defined in
>   Appendix A.1.
> 
> Current: 
>   The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could
>   be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation.  The example
>   uses XML [W3C.XML1.0] and the "example-application" fictional data
>   model defined in Appendix A.1.
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - In Section 7.3, note that we moved the example over
> three spaces to the left because
> "xmlns:sysds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore">"
> was 3 characters over the limit.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!--[rfced] *[AD] We have altered some text in the Security
> Considerations section to match the boilerplate text at
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. Also
> note that paragraph 4 varies from the template (we attempted to
> make it match more closely). Please review and let us know if any
> further updates are needed or if the text is agreeable as is.
> -->        
> 
> 
> 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module examples have been updated per
> the formatting option of pyang.  Please let us know any concerns.
> 
> a) example-application has been updated as follows:
> 
>  prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app
>  prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
> 
> b) example-acl has been updated as follows:
> 
>  prefix "ex-acl" -> prefix ex-acl
>  prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app
>  prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
> 
> c) example-interface has been updated as follows:
> 
>  prefix "ex-if" -> prefix ex-if
>  prefix "inet"  -> prefix inet
>  key name       -> key "name"
> 
> d) example-interface-management has been updated as follows:
> 
>  prefix "ex-ifm" -> prefix ex-ifm
>  prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that the following system configuration terms are
> hyphenated. Are these specific terms that should always appear
> hyphenated? We are confirming because adverbs ending in "ly" are
> not typically hyphenated in the RFC Series, and we could not find
> the hyphenated forms of these terms in past RFCs.
> 
> If the hyphens are not essential, we would remove them from
> "immediately-present" and "conditionally-present", and we would
> hyphenate "always present" only when in attributive position 
> (i.e., when followed by a noun). Please let us know your preference.
> 
> always-present
> conditionally-present
> immediately-present
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] 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.
> 
> Access Control List (ACL)
> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [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.
> 
> Alanna Paloma and Karen Moore
> RFC Production Center
> 
> 
> On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:24 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
> 
> Final Review for RFC-to-be 10016 <draft-ietf-netmod-system-config>
> 
> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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;
> see the Unavailable Authors section
> (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors)
> 
> 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 an archival mailing list
>     to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial
>     queue; 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/rfc10016.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-xmldiff1.html
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
>  https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC 10016 (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config)
> 
> Title            : System-defined Configuration
> Author(s)        : Q. Ma, Ed.,
>                  Q. Wu,
>                  C. Feng
> WG Chair(s)      : Kent Watsen, Lou Berger
> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]