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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
>