Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9417 <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-13> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean,

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9417

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On May 31, 2023, at 9:47 AM, Jean Quilbeuf <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alanna,
> 
> I approve the changes.
> 
> Best,
> Jean
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 5:39 PM
> To: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Jean Quilbeuf <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9417 <draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-13> for your review
> 
> Hi Benoit,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9417
> 
> Once we receive approvals from Jean, Diego, Dan, and Thangam, we will move this document forward in the publication process. 
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.txt
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On May 30, 2023, at 11:45 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 5/26/2023 7:13 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>> Hi Benoit,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly.
>>> 
>>> Regarding the use of “YANG module” and “YANG data model", we ask that you review all occurrences of “YANG model” in this document and let us know where updates are necessary. For example, in the following, “YANG modules” doesn’t seem right as RFC 7950 is titled “The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language”. 
>> I followed your advice:
>> c) We have received guidance from the YANG Doctors that "YANG module" 
>> and "YANG data model" are preferred.
>> Some occurrences may need an update, for example:
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>  This
>>>   problem is compounded by a large, disparate set of data sources (MIB
>>>   modules, YANG models [RFC7950], IPFIX information elements [RFC7011],
>>>   syslog plain text [RFC5424], TACACS+ [RFC8907], RADIUS [RFC2865],
>>>   etc.).  
>> NEW:
>>  This
>>   problem is compounded by a large, disparate set of data sources (MIB
>>   modules, YANG data models [RFC7950], IPFIX information elements [RFC7011],
>>   syslog plain text [RFC5424], TACACS+ [RFC8907], RADIUS [RFC2865],
>>   etc.).  
>>> 
>>> In another example, we see the following. However, Section 6 is titled “Subservice Augmentation: ietf-service-assurance-interface YANG Module”.
>> This is fine.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>   This can be partially achieved by correctly setting permissions of
>>>   each node in the YANG model as described in Section 6 of
>>>   [RFC9418].
>> 
>> New:
>>   This can be partially achieved by correctly setting permissions of
>>   each node in the YANG data model as described in Section 6 of
>>   [RFC9418].
>>> 
>>> Note that it is not always clear to us whether “model” vs. “module” is correct and/or if all instances of “YANG model” should be updated to “YANG data model”. Please review each instance and let us know if updates are needed. 
>> OLD:
>> In order to avoid this data
>>   model mapping, the industry converged on model-driven telemetry to
>>   stream the service operational data, reusing the YANG models used 
>> for
>> 
>> NEW:
>> In order to avoid this data
>>   model mapping, the industry converged on model-driven telemetry to
>>   stream the service operational data, reusing the YANG data models 
>> used for
>> 
>> OLD:
>>   In order to make agents, orchestrators, and collectors from different
>>   vendors interoperable, their interface is defined as a YANG model in
>>   a companion document [RFC9418].  In Figure 1, the communications that
>>   are normalized by this YANG model are tagged with a "Y".  The use of
>>   this YANG
>> model module
>> is further explained in Section 3.5.
>> 
>> NEW:
>>   In order to make agents, orchestrators, and collectors from different
>>   vendors interoperable, their interface is defined as a YANG moddule in
>>   a companion document [RFC9418].  In Figure 1, the communications that
>>   are normalized by this YANG module are tagged with a "Y".  The use of
>>   this YANG
>> model module
>> is further explained in Section 3.5.
>> 
>> OLD:
>> The set of dependency types presented here is not exhaustive.  More
>>   specific dependency types can be defined by extending the YANG model.
>> 
>> NEW:
>> The set of dependency types presented here is not exhaustive.  More
>>   specific dependency types can be defined by extending the YANG module.
>> 
>> OLD:
>> This also implies that, while waiting for all the
>>   metrics to be available via standard YANG modules, SAIN agents might
>>   have to retrieve metric values via nonstandard YANG models,
>> 
>> NEW:
>> This also implies that, while waiting for all the
>>   metrics to be available via standard YANG modules, SAIN agents might
>>   have to retrieve metric values via nonstandard YANG data models,
>> 
>>> 
>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.pdf
>>> 
>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-diff.html (comprehensive 
>>> diff)  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-auth48diff.html 
>>> (AUTH48 changes)
>>> 
>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
>>> 
>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>> Everything is fine. 
>> 
>> Thanks, B.
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9417
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>>> On May 24, 2023, at 3:18 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear RFC editors,
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/24/2023 11:09 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as 
>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, please note that this diff file will allow you to more easily view changes in the Introduction and Terminology sections.  Apologies, as we forgot to include this in the initial AUTH48 message:
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-alt-diff.html
>>>> All is fine thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that 
>>>>> appear in the
>>>>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>>> NA
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] May we update this document to say "an architecture 
>>>>> that assures" rather than "aims to assure"?  Otherwise, perhaps "an 
>>>>> architecture that provides some assurance that service instances are..."?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   This document describes an architecture that aims at assuring that
>>>>>   service instances are running as expected.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> an architecture
>>>> that provides some assurance that service instances are..."
>>>> 
>>>> The above works better, thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have moved the Terminology section to appear 
>>>>> after the Introduction.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Ok.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] "feed" reads a bit awkwardly.  Would "fuel" work 
>>>>> here instead?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   To feed that task, the industry has been standardizing
>>>>>   on telemetry to push network element performance information (e.g.,
>>>>>   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm]).
>>>>> -->
>>>> Fuel is better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] As this document is being published as an RFC, 
>>>>> should "propose" be removed?  That is, should it read "this 
>>>>> document defines an architecture implementing ..."?
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   In this document, we propose an architecture implementing Service
>>>>>   Assurance for Intent-Based Networking (SAIN).
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should the terms listed in the Terminology section 
>>>>> be listed in alphabetical order?
>>>>> -->
>>>> IIRC, there is some logic behind the order, for the reader
>>>> Ex: health status after subservice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the expansion for L2VPN to be 
>>>>> "layer 2 virtual private network" (i.e., s/level/layer).  Please 
>>>>> let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   As an example of a service, let us consider a point-to-point level 2
>>>>>   virtual private network (L2VPN).
>>>>> -->
>>>> OK
>>>>> 
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] What is being forwarded to the orchestrator?  Is it 
>>>>> the information that a switchover has occurred?  Also, is it the 
>>>>> orchestrator that reconfigures the agents?  Please consider whether 
>>>>> the suggested text correctly conveys the intended meaning.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   The
>>>>>   collector also detects changes in the assurance graph structures, for
>>>>>   instance when a switchover from primary to backup path occurs, and
>>>>>   forwards to the orchestrator, which reconfigures the agents.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>   The
>>>>>   collector also detects changes in the assurance graph structures (e.g., an
>>>>>   occurrence of a switchover from primary to backup path) and
>>>>>   forwards the information to the orchestrator, which reconfigures the agents.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Good proposal
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8641 does not include mention of 
>>>>> "telemetry".  Please review and let us know if/how the 
>>>>> text/citation should be updated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   *  Stream (via telemetry [RFC8641]) operational and config metric
>>>>>      values when possible, else continuously poll.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>>  *  Stream (via telemetry such as YANG-PUSH [RFC8641]) operational and config metric
>>>>     values when possible, else continuously poll.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "as" to "since" here? 
>>>>> This would make it clear the intended meaning is a result rather 
>>>>> than "at the same time".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  However, the dependencies between the link and the
>>>>>  interfaces are lost as they were causing the circular dependency.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  However, the dependencies between the link and the
>>>>>  interfaces are lost since they were causing the circular dependency.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced]  We find the use of "configuration" and 
>>>>> "configuring"/"configure" in the same sentence a bit confusing.  
>>>>> Please consider whether updates are needed?  Will the suggested 
>>>>> text change the intended meaning?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   The SAIN orchestrator must be able to analyze configuration pushed to
>>>>>   various devices for configuring a service instance and produce the
>>>>>   assurance graph for that service instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   To schematize what a SAIN orchestrator does, assume that the
>>>>>   configuration for a service instance touches two devices and
>>>>>   configure on each device a virtual tunnel interface. ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>   The SAIN orchestrator must be able to analyze the configuration pushed to
>>>>>   various devices of a service instance and produce the
>>>>>   assurance graph for that service instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   To schematize what a SAIN orchestrator does, assume that
>>>>>   a service instance touches two devices and
>>>>>   configures a virtual tunnel interface on each device.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Yes, this is better
>>>>> 
>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Is it possible to detect a non-functional tunnel?
>>>> Yes, it's configured but no traffic is forwarded.
>>>>> Does
>>>>> detection that a tunnel exists imply that it is functional?
>>>> No, see above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   *  Capturing the intent would start by detecting that the service
>>>>>      instance is actually a tunnel between the two devices, and stating
>>>>>      that this tunnel must be functional.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>   *  Capturing the intent would entail detecting that the service
>>>>>      instance is actually a tunnel between the two devices and indicating
>>>>>      that the tunnel must remain functional.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Proposal
>>>> 
>>>>  *  Capturing the intent would start by detecting that the service
>>>>     instance is actually a tunnel between the two devices, and stating
>>>>     that this tunnel must be operational.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] This text reads awkwardly in that it first says 
>>>>> the organization is out of scope but then lists goals.  Please 
>>>>> consider whether the suggested text is correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   The organization of such a process is out-of-scope for this
>>>>>   document and should aim to:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  Ensure that existing subservices are reused as much as possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  Avoid circular dependencies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>   The organization of such a process is out of scope for this
>>>>>   document.  Future documentation should aim to:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  Ensure that existing subservices are reused as much as possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  Avoid circular dependencies.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> 
>>>>  The organization of such a process (Ensure that existing subservices are reused as much as possible
>>>>  and avoid circular dependencies) is out-of-scope for this
>>>>  document.
>>>> 
>>>> Does it work better?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 14) <!--[rfced] In the sentence below, does "identify the object" 
>>>>> describe "the parameters" or "a minimal set"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   Then, the parameters
>>>>>   must be chosen as a minimal set that completely identify the object
>>>>>   (see examples from the previous paragraph).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps (describes "a minimal set"):
>>>>>   Then, the parameters
>>>>>   must be chosen as a minimal set that completely identifies the object
>>>>>   (see examples from the previous paragraph).
>>>>> -->
>>>> Your proposal is better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] We are having some difficulty understanding 
>>>>> "expressed differently" in the sentence below. Please review and 
>>>>> let us know how this sentence should be updated.
>>>> expressed differently = in other words
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   In order to keep subservices independent of metric collection method,
>>>>>   or, expressed differently, to support multiple combinations of
>>>>>   platforms, OSes, and even vendors, the architecture introduces the
>>>>>   concept of "metric engine".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps A:
>>>>>   In order to keep subservices independent of metric collection method,
>>>>>   and support multiple combinations of
>>>>>   platforms, OSes, and even vendors, the architecture introduces the
>>>>>   concept of "metric engine".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps B:
>>>>>   In order to keep subservices independent of metric collection method
>>>>>   (or, expressed differently, to support multiple combinations of
>>>>>   platforms, OSes, and even vendors), the architecture introduces the
>>>>>   concept of "metric engine".
>>>>> -->
>>>> Proposal B is better
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] Ordering the IANA section before the Security 
>>>>> Considerations section is strongly recommended in the RFC Style 
>>>>> Guide (see RFC 7322, Section 4). Given this, we updated the document accordingly.  Please let us know any objections.
>>>>> -->
>>>> Then we will strongly follow the recommendations :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 17) <!--[rfced] Terminology questions
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) FYI, we have capitalized instances of "engineer A" and "engineer B"
>>>>> to be "Engineer A" and "Engineer B" to be consistent. Please let us 
>>>>> know of any objections.
>>>> No objection.
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) We note that "health score" and "health-score" are both used in 
>>>>> this document. Should these instances be made consistent?
>>>> Fine to change "health-score" to health score. There is only one occurence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> c) We have received guidance from the YANG Doctors that "YANG 
>>>>> module" and "YANG data model" are preferred.
>>>>> Some occurrences may need an update, for example:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>   The use of this YANG model is further
>>>>>   explained in Section 3.5.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Where Section 3.5 is "Open Interfaces with YANG Modules.”
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please review and specify any needed updates.
>>>>> -->
>>>> This is fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 18) <!-- [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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this 
>>>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for the improvements.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 23, 2023, at 7:58 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>> 
>>>>> Updated 2023/05/23
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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/rfc9417.xml
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.pdf
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-diff.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-rfcdiff.html (side by 
>>>>> side)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417-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/rfc9417.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format 
>>>>> updates
>>>>> only:
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9417.form.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9417
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC9417 (draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-13)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Title            : Service Assurance for Intent-based Networking Architecture
>>>>> Author(s)        : B. Claise, J. Quilbeuf, D. Lopez, D. Voyer, T. Arumugam
>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Henk Birkholz, Joe Clarke, Tianran Zhou
>>>>> Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton
> 
>