Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9403 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24> (was -22) for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Acee, Yingzhen, and Jim.

Thank you for the emails.

Jim, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page; thank you!

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9403

Acee and Yingzhen, we have updated this document per your notes below.

Yingzhen, regarding your reply to our question 3):  Because there are four YANG modules in RFC 8349 and you specified three of them, we specified the three modules in the text as well, to eliminate any question regarding the fourth module in RFC 8349.  Please let us know any concerns.

= = = = =

We found that your replies to our question 5) differ somewhat.  Please review the update to Section 3.1, Paragraph 2, and let us know any concerns.

= = = = =

Regarding your replies to our question 7):  Apologies; we corrected this term and used "Equal-Cost Multipath" per <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt> (also per more frequent usage in post-6000 published RFCs).

= = = = =

Regarding our question 11) (using the <aside> element) and your replies:  As Yingzhen pointed out, this technique has not been consistently applied in recently published RFCs.  Please review, and let us know whether you want to keep or remove the <aside> in Appendix B.

= = = = =

Yingzhen, regarding inclusive language:  No changes are needed; even if we don't find any words that might be of concern, we still ask the authors to also review, as a best practice.

= = = = =

Regarding our question 14) (...extensions.yang vs. ...extension.yang) and your replies:  We updated two instances in Section 6 and one in Appendix A.  Please review, and let us know any concerns.

= = = = =

The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-auth48diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff2.html

Thanks again!

RFC Editor/lb


> On Nov 2, 2023, at 5:36 AM, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
> For the questions marked [AD] I approve and agree with the authors comments.
> 
> Jim



> On Nov 1, 2023, at 2:26 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
>  Thanks for the work. Please see my answers inline below.
> 
>  Thanks,
> 
> Yingzhen
> 
>  From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:07 AM
> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>, James Guichard <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>, auth48archive <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9403 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24> (was -22) for your review
> Dear authors and *AD (Jim),
> 
> We have updated the edited (AUTH48) copy of this document per the updates from version -22 to version -24 (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl1%3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22%26url2%3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24%26difftype%3D--html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o5G50zcl3AbU8gkXwutsGTBmIyrrbzqCxHc%2Bt3G0yhQ%3D&reserved=0) and made a few editorial updates as needed.
> 
> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything (particularly in the YANG module) is incorrect.
> 
> * Jim, there are four questions below for you, marked "*[AD]".  Please review, and let us know if you approve.
> 
> Our updated list of questions is as follows.  Please review, and let us know how this document should be further updated:
> 
> 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 -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: “A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions” is good.
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> title) for use on <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hwO5XHAwCWytrp0eiiYyFm6AiepIFNlSBk16%2BJt3lPs%3D&reserved=0>. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]:  RFC8349 has the following keywords: configuration, IPv6 Router Advertisements, NETCONF, RESTCONF
> For this document, I’d suggest to use “YANG, Routing,  RIB”.
> 
> 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. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: we are actually augmenting ietf-ipv4-unicast and ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing modules as well. So how about the following:
>  The YANG module defined in this document augments the
>  YANG modules defined in [RFC8349], which provide a basis for routing
>  system data model development.
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and 5:  We have 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
> ...
>  description
>     "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>      source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS since their YANG
>      models already include a 'metric' augmentation for
>      routes.";
> ...
>  description
>    "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>     source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS since their YANG
>     models already include a 'tag' augmentation for
>     routes.";
> 
> 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
> ...
>  description
>    "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>     source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS, since their YANG
>     data models already include a 'metric' augmentation for
>     routes.";
> ...
>  description
>    "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>     source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS, since their YANG
>     data models already include a 'tag' augmentation for
>     routes."; -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: Agreed with Acee’s suggestion.
> 
> 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. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: OK.
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Per common practice in YANG documents, we
> added the following introductory paragraph just prior to the YANG
> module.
> 
> This also accounts for the addition of RFCs 9129 and 9130 as
> references in the latest version of this document.
> 
> Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original:
>  5. RIB Extension YANG Model
> 
>    <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"
> 
> Currently:
>  5.  RIB Extension YANG Module
> 
>     This YANG module references [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8349],
>     [RFC9129], [RFC9130], and [RFC5714].
> 
>     <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]" -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: this looks good.
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [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. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: I did some search online, and I see both “Equal-Cost Multi-Path” and “Equal Cost Multi-Path”. Whichever is IETF tradition is fine.
> 
> 8) <!-- [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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fops%2Fyang-security-guidelines&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lKGtfdFubM9xxjiFC2HOWg2D0eoSf9YyZSPzitfhTes%3D&reserved=0> 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?). -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: Please remove the “RPC” from section 2.
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] *[AD]:  Per the latest updates to the YANG module in this
> document, we added RFCs 9129 and 9130 to the Normative References
> section.  Per our process, we need to ask for your approval regarding
> any changes to the Normative References list.  Please confirm that
> these additional Normative Reference listings are acceptable. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: Yes.
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Appendix B:  Per
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fabout%2Fgroups%2Fiesg%2Fstatements%2Fformal-languages-use%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ygBVhD8f8wgexx7MoRTqemQmOVBHn64sPtpRjM9bUDc%3D&reserved=0>,
> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fxml%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xBhLvbMFt5%2BDIjXZpldUWxScGQpU7F9%2B1n%2BKbjW4HdE%3D&reserved=0>. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: Please add it.
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Appendix B:  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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fen%2Frfcxml-vocabulary%23aside&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pmeOG0TrYcRWZlaCEts08GsHwqdHZ9oUqVU7%2Bnr%2B%2BuM%3D&reserved=0).
> 
> Original:
>  Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792]. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: same as Acee, I don’t know how this will look. It seems that the format of this sentence is not used consistently in published RFCs.
> 
> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Finfo%2Frfc7951&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A2mA1HgGcPR2mdN6kvaYORrCItutMEb4zf5qMQG%2FBbA%3D&reserved=0>. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: It should be added as Informative.
> 
> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> online Style Guide at
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=egs4Rdeyzxi%2BIbFPWHO0mw4JUHQ%2F%2FEfcMLJe0dTtS%2Bo%3D&reserved=0>,
> 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. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: It seems to me no change is needed. Correct?
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
> this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
> 
>  ietf-rib-extensions / ietf-rib-extension
>    (e.g., "in the ietf-rib-extensions.yang module",
>     "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension",
>     "Appendix B.  ietf-rib-extension.yang example")
> 
>    * Please note that if the plural "extensions" is correct, we will
>    update this document accordingly and also ask IANA to update their
>    corresponding pages. -->
> 
> [Yingzhen]: please use ietf-rib-extension, the same as the module name.
> 
> = = = = =
> 
> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
> 
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PKmI%2B%2FuA64atYfTmhsdPDMyZJt8T23kEq%2BGuHTP%2BnMI%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gxlWnQeSdWBqxCR3ciGOSCDWo%2F5ujW%2B1XIEQqNfm4Mc%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hu0IQmPncGDlps0K2LTWL4qGv%2BGa487V4bgYbClL9w0%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kF7hQykHaspx3MGbAQgCjmBa2fAjy2lHWS%2BycTRODYI%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GqrFFkgCQu51jvsrGejaLqyRHpR4i2Mo4c%2Fr%2B6JHhhQ%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ne0F4M4scXhIEqqhIbUbwX%2BDGWF9aKj2RKfHEut3RM4%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FAwcTxOIHjhqogo%2BO8xUiK%2FdJJF95rCTwhJu1aHOFbg%3D&reserved=0
> 
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BMLLoMsI%2BHCAFGh38k3KBiftN6vvdKcXAXnYsXjEOpA%3D&reserved=0
>    https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9403-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C389e9f5c54e34f5a889e08dbdb055716%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638344588233146700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8m2uho5tUDSnU3wPzexaz9DpshGnAmEhZlMnXeWMjYg%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb

> On Nov 1, 2023, at 12:48 PM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2023, at 14:06, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear authors and *AD (Jim),
>> 
>> We have updated the edited (AUTH48) copy of this document per the updates from version -22 to version -24 (https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22&url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-24&difftype=--html) and made a few editorial updates as needed.
>> 
>> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything (particularly in the YANG module) is incorrect.
>> 
>> * Jim, there are four questions below for you, marked "*[AD]".  Please review, and let us know if you approve.
>> 
>> Our updated list of questions is as follows.  Please review, and let us know how this document should be further updated:
>> 
>> 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 -->
> 
> This is fine. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
> 
> Please use the same keywords as RFC 8349. If none, add “YANG” and “Routing”. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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. -->
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and 5:  We have 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
>> ...
>> description
>>   "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>>    source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS since their YANG
>>    models already include a 'metric' augmentation for
>>    routes.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>>   source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS since their YANG
>>   models already include a 'tag' augmentation for
>>   routes.";
>> 
>> 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
>> ...
>> description
>>  "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>>   source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS, since their YANG
>>   data models already include a 'metric' augmentation for
>>   routes.";
>> ...
>> description
>>  "This augmentation is only valid for routes whose
>>   source protocol is not OSPF or IS-IS, since their YANG
>>   data models already include a 'tag' augmentation for
>>   routes."; -->
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:  We could not parse this sentence.
>> If the suggested text is not correct, please provide clarifying text.
> 
> It makes sense to me but then I wrote it. Is this clearer?
> 
>   This augmentation is only valid for routes that don’t have
>    OSPF or IS-IS as the source protocol. The YANG data models
>    for OSPF and IS-IS already include a ‘metric’ augmentation
>    for routes. 
> 
> Do the same for ’tag’. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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. -->
> 
> Simply changing “which” to “that”. Ok 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Per common practice in YANG documents, we
>> added the following introductory paragraph just prior to the YANG
>> module.
>> 
>> This also accounts for the addition of RFCs 9129 and 9130 as
>> references in the latest version of this document.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Please let us know any objections.
> 
> None. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Original:
>> 5. RIB Extension YANG Model
>> 
>>  <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"
>> 
>> Currently:
>> 5.  RIB Extension YANG Module
>> 
>>   This YANG module references [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8349],
>>   [RFC9129], [RFC9130], and [RFC5714].
>> 
>>   <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]" -->
> 
> 
> Ok - this is good. Forgot to add these. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [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. -->
> 
> I saw you changed the hyphenation of "Equal-Cost Mult-Path”. What is the reason? 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [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?). -->
> 
> No - please remove it from Section 2. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] *[AD]:  Per the latest updates to the YANG module in this
>> document, we added RFCs 9129 and 9130 to the Normative References
>> section.  Per our process, we need to ask for your approval regarding
>> any changes to the Normative References list.  Please confirm that
>> these additional Normative Reference listings are acceptable. -->
> 
> I agree. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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/>. -->
> 
> I agree it should be added.  
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Appendix B:  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).
>> 
>> Original:
>> Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792]. -->
> 
> Sure - I’ve never used this but I’ll look at the results in the next revision. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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>. -->
> 
> 
> I agree. 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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. -->
> 
> 
> All good from my standpoint. 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 14) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
>> this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
>> 
>> ietf-rib-extensions / ietf-rib-extension
>>  (e.g., "in the ietf-rib-extensions.yang module",
>>   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension",
>>   "Appendix B.  ietf-rib-extension.yang example")
>> 
>>  * Please note that if the plural "extensions" is correct, we will
>>  update this document accordingly and also ask IANA to update their
>>  corresponding pages. -->
> 
> I only found one instance of “ietf-rib-extensions.yang” in section 8 - please change it to “ietf-rib-extension.yang”. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> = = = = =
>> 
>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.txt
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-rfcdiff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-auth48diff.html
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff1.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff2.html
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 4:16 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Authors,
>>> 
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 
>> 
>> *** Please see updated list above (1 Nov. 2023).
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>