Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9408 <draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Qin.  No worries, and thank you for the email.

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9408

As we now have all approvals, we will prepare this document for publication shortly.

Thanks again!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Jun 6, 2023, at 6:01 PM, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lynne:
> Apologize for late reply. The changes proposed in the latest version look good, I approve publication of this document.
> 
> -Qin 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Lynne Bartholomew [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 发送时间: 2023年5月26日 22:35
> 收件人: [e-mail]
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Qin Wu <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9408 <draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15> for your review
> 
> Hi, Med.
> 
> We have changed "which" to "that" per your note below.
> 
> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-rfcdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-auth48diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-lastdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-lastrfcdiff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-xmldiff2.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-alt-diff.html
> 
> We have also noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9408
> 
> Many thanks to you for your help and patience!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On May 24, 2023, at 10:46 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lynne,
>> 
>> Thank you for taking care of the changes. 
>> 
>> For item 17: s/which/that
>> 
>> Other than that, this version looks good to me and I approve its publication. 
>> 
>> Many thanks for your careful edits. Much appreciated as usual.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>> 
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> Envoyé : mercredi 24 
>>> mai 2023 20:44 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET 
>>> <[e-mail]> Cc : [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
>>> Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9408 <draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15> for 
>>> your review
>>> 
>>> Hi, Med.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the emails and clarifications!  We have updated this 
>>> document per your notes below.
>>> 
>>> Regarding singular vs. plural:  We reverted to the style used in the 
>>> original, even though there are several instances of "VPNs" as used 
>>> in the original (e.g., the second sentence of the Introduction).  We 
>>> followed suit with UNI/NNI vs. UNIs/NNIs and UNI-N (i.e., reverted 
>>> our updates).
>>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> Regarding this question and your reply:
>>> 
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We changed "A YANG Model" to "A YANG Network
>>> Model"
>>>>> in the abbreviated (running) document title to match "Network
>>> Model"
>>>>> in the full title.  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> A YANG Model for SAPs
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> A YANG Network Model for SAPs -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] The mention of "network model" is important here to insist
>>> that this is not about a device data model. We can update the title 
>>> to align with the usage in RFC9182/9291:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we misunderstood your request.  The expanded "SAPs" made the 
>>> abbreviated title too long.  We received this warning:
>>> 
>>> Warning: Expected a title or title abbreviation of not more than 40 
>>> character for the page header, found 62 characters
>>> 
>>> We changed the full title to "A YANG Network Data Model for Service 
>>> Attachment Points (SAPs)" and the abbreviated title to "A YANG 
>>> Network Data Model for SAPs".  Please let us know any concerns.
>>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> Regarding this question and your "NEW" text:
>>> 
>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix D:  This sentence did not parse.  We 
>>>>> updated the text per the last sentence of Appendix A, Paragraph
>>> 1.
>>>>> If this update is incorrect, please clarify the meaning of "and
>>> that
>>>>> none of ...".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> This is
>>>>> particularly inferred from the administrative 'service-status'
>>>>> which
>>>>> is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services that
>>> are
>>>>> supported by these two SAPs and that none of the anomalies
>>> discussed
>>>>> in Section 5 are detected.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> This is
>>>>> particularly inferred from the administrative 'service-status',
>>> which
>>>>> is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services that
>>> are
>>>>> supported by these two SAPs.  Note that none of the anomalies 
>>>>> discussed in Section 5 are detected. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] What about:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> This is
>>>> particularly inferred from (1) the administrative 'service-
>>> status' which
>>>> is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services that
>>> are
>>>> supported by these two SAPs and (2) the absence of the anomalies
>>> discussed
>>>> in Section 5.
>>> 
>>> Is the administrative 'service-status' only sometimes set to 'ietf- 
>>> vpn-common:admin-down' (in which case "which" should be "that"), or 
>>> is it always set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' (in which case a 
>>> comma should precede the "which")?
>>> 
>>> = = = = =
>>> 
>>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
>>> 
>>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.txt
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-rfcdiff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-auth48diff.html
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-alt-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-xmldiff1.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-xmldiff2.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9408-alt-diff.html
>>> Thanks again!
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 23, 2023, at 10:29 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Lynne,
>>>> 
>>>> Sure. The proposed change is as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> *  L3VPNs [RFC4364]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLSs) [RFC4761] [RFC4762]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWSs) [RFC8214]
>>>> 
>>>> *  BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs [RFC7432]
>>>> 
>>>> *  VPWSs in Ethernet VPNs [RFC8214]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Provider Backbone Bridging combined with Ethernet VPNs (PBB-
>>> EVPNs)
>>>>    [RFC7623]
>>>> 
>>>> *  VXLAN-based EVPNs [RFC8365] ("VXLAN" stands for "Virtual
>>>>    eXtensible Local Area Network")
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Networks [RFC8453]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Enhanced VPN (VPN+) [ENHANCED-VPN]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Network slices [IETF-NETWORK-SLICES]
>>>> 
>>>> *  SD-WAN overlay networks [BGP-SDWAN-USAGE]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Basic IP connectivity
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> *  L3VPN [RFC4364]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4761] [RFC4762]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC8214]
>>>> 
>>>> *  BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN [RFC7432]
>>>> 
>>>> *  VPWS in Ethernet VPN [RFC8214]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Provider Backbone Bridging combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-
>>> EVPN)
>>>>    [RFC7623]
>>>> 
>>>> *  VXLAN-based EVPN [RFC8365] ("VXLAN" stands for "Virtual
>>>>    eXtensible Local Area Network")
>>>> 
>>>> *  Virtual Networks [RFC8453]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Enhanced VPN (VPN+) [ENHANCED-VPN]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Network slice service [IETF-NETWORK-SLICES]
>>>> 
>>>> *  SD-WAN [BGP-SDWAN-USAGE]
>>>> 
>>>> *  Basic IP connectivity
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Med
>>> 
>>> 
>>> = = = = = = = =
>>> 
>>>> On May 23, 2023, at 4:28 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Re-,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for sharing this edited version. Overall, the edits look
>>> good. However:
>>>> 
>>>> (1) Rather than using the plural form as suggested in the edited
>>> version, I would maintain the singular form of the services
>>> (Original) listed right after:
>>>> 
>>>> A SAP network topology can be used for one or multiple service
>>> types
>>>> ('service-type').  Examples of supported service types are as
>>>> follows:
>>>> 
>>>> For example, we are referring to "VPN" as a service, not the VPN
>>> instances of the service. FWIW, this would be consistent with the 
>>> usage in Section 3 of RFC9181.
>>>> 
>>>> The same apply for the changes in the abstract, but I'm OK to
>>> maintain the edits in the abstract if you prefer.
>>>> 
>>>> (2) I'm not sure we need to add "see" when pointing to refs. I
>>> would revert to the OLD versions. There are many occurrences in the 
>>> edited version.
>>>> 
>>>> (3) Please make this change in Section 2:
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> Attachment Circuit (AC):  A channel that connects a Customer
>>> Edge
>>>>    (CE) to a Provider Edge (PE).  The AC may be a physical or
>>> logical
>>>>    link (Section 6.1 of [RFC4026]).
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> Attachment Circuit (AC):  A channel that connects a Customer
>>> Edge
>>>>    (CE) to a Provider Edge (PE).
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, this change was shared with the WG since 02/23. The
>>> rationale can be seen at:
>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fma
>>> ilarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fopsawg%2F_Iiv16zSUnnGuSxywvXlROqh2
>>> AI%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C0db08cfbe50745
>>> 6f7f9f08db5c871280%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6382
>>> 05510092419895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
>>> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DF8f31Dp
>>> wQBzL0SCCEm1WQaz1Z2aBOT1i2IVVt83m4c%3D&reserved=0.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Med
>>> 
>>> = = = = = = = =
>>> 
>>>> On May 23, 2023, at 12:49 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear RFC Editor, all,
>>>> 
>>>> Please see inline.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Med
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> De : [e-mail] <[e-mail]> Envoyé : 
>>>>> lundi 22 mai 2023 22:44 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET 
>>>>> <[e-mail]>; 
>>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>>>> [e-mail] Cc : [e-mail]; 
>>>>> [e-mail]; opsawg- [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : Re: AUTH48: 
>>>>> RFC-to-be 9408 <draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15> for your review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We changed "A YANG Model" to "A YANG Network Model" 
>>>>> in the abbreviated (running) document title to match "Network 
>>>>> Model" in the full title.  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> A YANG Model for SAPs
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> A YANG Network Model for SAPs -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] The mention of "network model" is important here to insist
>>> that this is not about a device data model. We can update the title 
>>> to align with the usage in RFC9182/9291:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Abstract and subsequent:  It looks a bit odd to use 
>>>>> "User-Network Interface" for "UNI" but "Network-to-Network 
>>>>> Interface"
>>>>> for "NNI" and "UNI-N (User-to-Network Interface, Network side) 
>>>>> [RFC6215]" as seen in Section 3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does "User-Network Interface" mean "User-to-Network Interface",
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] Yes. Both are actually used in existing RFCs. "User-Network
>>> Interface" is what is used by some other SDOs (see, e.g., the MEF 
>>> refs in the I-D). That's said, we need to be consistent and use the 
>>> same form for both UNI and NNI.
>>>> 
>>>> as
>>>>> used in some RFCs?  Or does it mean "the user network's interface"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Side note:  We see a few instances of "Network-Network
>>> Interface"
>>>>> in published RFCs, but "Network-to-Network Interface" is used
>>> more
>>>>> often.)
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] OK to use "*-to-*" for both UNI/NNI.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Both User-Network Interface (UNI) and Network-to-  Network 
>>>>> Interface (NNI) are supported in the SAP data model.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Given that User-Network Interface (UNI) and Network-to-Network 
>>>>> Interface (NNI) are reference points that are widely used by 
>>>>> operators to indicate the demarcation points when delivering 
>>>>> services, both UNI and NNI SAPs are supported in the document.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> etc. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1:  This sentence did not parse.  We 
>>>>> updated it as follows.  If this is incorrect, please provide 
>>>>> clarifying text.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Whether a SAP topology is dedicated to services of a specific 
>>>>> service type, an individual service, or shared among many
>>> services
>>>>> of  different types is deployment specific.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> Whether a SAP topology is dedicated to services of a specific 
>>>>> service type or an individual service, or is shared among many 
>>>>> services of different types, is deployment specific. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] Works for me. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  We changed "the module" to "the
>>> model"
>>>>> in the second sentence here, as it appears that the text refers
>>> to
>>>>> the model and not to the YANG module provided in Section 6.  If 
>>>>> this update is incorrect, please provide clarifying text.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
>>>>> The model is also used to retrieve the network reference points 
>>>>> where  a service is being delivered to customers.  For services 
>>>>> that require  resources from peer networks, the module can also
>>> be
>>>>> used to expose  NNIs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> The model is also used to retrieve the network  reference points 
>>>>> where a service is being delivered to customers.
>>>>> For services that require resources from peer networks, the model 
>>>>> can  also be used to expose NNIs. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] OK.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in this 
>>>>> document.
>>>>> Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or 
>>>>> another element?  For example, are Figures 7, 9, 10, and 12 in the 
>>>>> appendices JSON?
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> If yes, should an Informative Reference be
>>>>> provided - perhaps to RFC 8259 - in text just prior to Figure 7?
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] I suggest to add the following + list 7951 as an Informative
>>> Reference:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> The message body depicted in the figures is encoded following the 
>>>> the JSON encoding of YANG-modeled data as per [[RFC7951].
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the current list of preferred values for "type"
>>>>> 
>>> (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fmaterials%2Fsourcecode-
>>>>> 
>>> types.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa068512
>>>>> 
>>> cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C
>>>>> 
>>> 0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA
>>>>> 
>>> iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sd
>>>>> 
>>> ata=5NjV1F%2B24%2F8MtaBk3IgE0S0PTB9M31fHpqEG%2BjJoI2k%3D&reserved=
>>>>> 0)
>>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know.
>>>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  As we don't see "P node" or "P nodes"
>>>>> mentioned anywhere else in this document and the next sentence 
>>>>> after this text mentions Figure 2 (which shows PE nodes), we 
>>>>> changed "P nodes" to "PE nodes" here.  If this is incorrect, please 
>>>>> provide text that clarifies the meaning of "P nodes".
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] The OLD version is correct. Please revert back.
>>>> 
>>>> "P" nodes are hidden in the cloud shown in Figure 2, for example.
>>> We used to have these nodes drawn there but we removed them to 
>>> simplify the figures.
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, please see
>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fda
>>> tatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc4026%23autoid-
>>> 37&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C0db08cfbe507456f7
>>> f9f08db5c871280%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6382055
>>> 10092419895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2lu
>>> MzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4Ad1rENUXqN
>>> VFtbzWrWtrTpD7n70XxR4SnEKvVPuB3w%3D&reserved=0.
>>>> 
>>>> If needed, we can make this change: s/P nodes/P nodes (Section
>>> 5.3.1 of [RFC4026])
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original (the next sentence is included for context):
>>>>> The service orchestration layer does not need to know about all the 
>>>>> internals of the underlying network (e.g., P nodes).  Figure 2 
>>>>> shows the abstract network view as seen by a service orchestrator.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> The service orchestration layer does not need to know about all the 
>>>>> internals of the underlying network (e.g., PE nodes). -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We had trouble following the use of 
>>>>> capitalization in this sentence (for example, as compared to "SAP 
>>>>> network model").
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> The SAP network model augments the Network model [RFC8345] and 
>>>>> imports the Network Topology model, while other technology- 
>>>>> specific topology models (e.g., Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies 
>>>>> model [RFC8795] or Layer 3 Topologies model [RFC8346]) augment the 
>>>>> Network Topology model.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly:
>>>>> The SAP network model augments the network model defined in 
>>>>> [RFC8345] and imports the network topology model defined in 
>>>>> [RFC8345], while other technology-specific topology models (e.g., 
>>>>> the model for Traffic Engineering (TE) topologies [RFC8795] or the 
>>>>> model for Layer 3 topologies [RFC8346]) augment the network 
>>>>> topology model defined in [RFC8345]. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] OK.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We see that "TP" and "TTP" are
>>> defined
>>>>> in
>>>>> this paragraph, but these abbreviations are not used again.
>>> Which
>>>>> of
>>>>> the following update options would you prefer?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Use "TP" instead of "termination point" in the eight
>>> subsequent
>>>>> instances of this term (except for Section 6, where we would change 
>>>>> "parent termination point" to "parent termination point (TP)" and 
>>>>> then use "TP" in the next sentence).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Remove the abbreviations from this paragraph and spell out 
>>>>> "termination point".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> SAPs can be seen as customer-facing termination points (TPs) with 
>>>>> specific service provisions.  However, a difference between SAPs 
>>>>> and TPs is that links are terminated by a single TP (Section 4.4.6 
>>>>> of
>>>>> [RFC8345]) while an AC can be terminated by multiple SAPs.  Also, a 
>>>>> SAP is not a tunnel termination point (TTP) (Section 3.6 of
>>>>> [RFC8795]) nor a link. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] I prefer to leave the Original version with "termination
>>> point" expanded. The abbreviations are included to help readers 
>>> correlate with other context. I don't think a change is needed here.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Should "network modules" and "SAP 
>>>>> network module" in these sentences be "network models" and "SAP 
>>>>> network model"?  We ask (particularly in the case of "SAP network
>>> module")
>>>>> because of this sentence from Section 4.4 of [RFC8969], as it
>>> does
>>>>> not use the word "module":
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Service Decomposition allows to decompose service models at the 
>>>>> service level or network models at the network level into a set of 
>>>>> device models at the device level."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> |  Leveraging the service types defined in [RFC9181] is meant to  
>>>>> | ease the correlation between the SAP topology and the  
>>>>> | corresponding network modules that are used to provision a  
>>>>> | specific service over a provider's network.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> That mapping is used, for example,
>>>>> when the controller translates this SAP network module into device 
>>>>> modules (Section 4.4 of [RFC8969]).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly:
>>>>> |  Leveraging the service types defined in [RFC9181] is meant to  
>>>>> | ease the correlation between the SAP topology and the  
>>>>> | corresponding network models that are used to provision a  
>>>>> | specific service over a provider's network.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> That mapping is used, for example,
>>>>> when the controller translates this SAP network model into device 
>>>>> models (Section 4.4 of [RFC8969]). -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] Works for me. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Please clarify the meaning of "in 
>>>>> association" in this sentence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
>>>>> The same SAP may appear under distinct service types.  In such a 
>>>>> case, the same identifier is used for these service types in 
>>>>> association.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly:
>>>>> The same SAP may appear under distinct service types.  In such a 
>>>>> case, the same identifier is used for these service types in order 
>>>>> to associate them. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] What about:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> The same SAP may appear under distinct service types.  In such a 
>>>> case, the same identifier is used for a shared SAP for each of
>>> these
>>>> service types.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  As we do not see "mode" or "modes"
>>>>> used
>>>>> anywhere else in this document, we changed "device modes" to 
>>>>> "device models" in this sentence.
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] The change is correct. Thanks for catching this.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If this is incorrect, should the use of
>>>>> "modes" be clarified for readers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> It
>>>>> is the responsibility of the controller to ensure that consistent 
>>>>> references are used in the SAP and underlying device modes or any 
>>>>> other device inventory mechanism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> The controller is responsible for ensuring that consistent 
>>>>> references are used in the SAP and underlying device models or any 
>>>>> other device inventory mechanism. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Sections 5 and 6:  We defined "IRB" as "Integrated 
>>>>> Routing and Bridging (IRB) interface", per RFC 9135 and other
>>>>> post-6000 published RFCs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, please note that in Section 6 we expanded "IP-VRF" as "IP 
>>>>> Virtual Routing and Forwarding" for ease of the reader.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] OK.
>>>> 
>>>>> Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> 'interface-type':  Indicates whether a SAP is bound to a physical
>>>>>  port, a loopback interface, a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
>>>>>  interface [IEEE802.1AX], an Integrated Routing Bridge (IRB) 
>>>>> (e.g.,
>>>>>  [RFC9135]), a local bridge reference, etc.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> "Integrated Routing Bridge (IRB). An IRB typically connects an 
>>>>> IP-VRF to a bridge domain.";
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> 'interface-type':  Indicates whether a SAP is bound to a physical
>>>>>  port, a loopback interface, a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
>>>>>  interface [IEEE802.1AX], an Integrated Routing and Bridging
>>>>> (IRB)
>>>>>  interface (e.g., see [RFC9135]), a local bridge reference, etc.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> "Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) interface.  An IRB interface 
>>>>> typically connects an IP Virtual Routing and Forwarding (IP-VRF) 
>>>>> entity to a bridge domain."; -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  The latest version of 
>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices (-19) does not have a Section 
>>>>> 2.1, nor does the version (-18) provided in the original copy of 
>>>>> this document.
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] That section was renumbered to Section 3.2
>>> (https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fa
>>> uthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl1%3Ddraft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-
>>> slices-16%26url2%3Ddraft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-
>>> 17%26difftype%3D--
>>> html&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C0db08cfbe507456
>>> f7f9f08db5c871280%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63820
>>> 5510092576163%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2
>>> luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KkFAYskXL
>>> 21ew74%2Fntlb1YH7PhVpXlR%2BLMs13aBX5kc%3D&reserved=0).
>>>> 
>>>> What about:
>>>> 
>>>> s/Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]/the "Core
>>> Terminology" Section of [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please see
>>>>> 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-teas-ietf-
>>> network-
>>>>> slices-
>>>>> 
>>> 19&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa068512cee4460
>>>>> 
>>> 9f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638
>>>>> 
>>> 203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj
>>>>> 
>>> oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4p4
>>>>> ZMp%2Fa%2FEGEBxPsKQEOs1bVFLF21uIZx8M0kDSexOQ%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>> and let us know which section number should be cited.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> Examples of such a reference are: a site identifier (Section 6.3 of 
>>>>> [RFC8299]), a Service Demarcation Point (SDP) identifier (Section 
>>>>> 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]), and the IP address of 
>>>>> a peer Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR). -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 6:  Informative Reference RFC 8343 is
>>> not
>>>>> mentioned anywhere else in this document.  Is an "import"
>>>>> statement
>>>>> missing in the YANG module (in which case it should be a
>>> Normative
>>>>> Reference instead)?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] We used to have an import in a previous version, but forgot
>>> to remove it when we updated the design. Please remove 8343 for the 
>>> references and make this change:
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> This module imports types from [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8345],
>>> and
>>>> [RFC9181].
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> This module imports types from [RFC6991], [RFC8345], and  
>>>> [RFC9181].
>>>> 
>>>>> Also, because RFC 8453 is referenced in the YANG module, may we add 
>>>>> "This module also references [RFC8453]." after the "This module 
>>>>> imports" sentence?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] We don't need this change as the ref is already called out
>>> in Section 5.
>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> This module imports types from [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8345], and 
>>>>> [RFC9181].
>>>>> ...
>>>>> reference
>>>>> "RFC 8453: Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE
>>>>>            Networks (ACTN)";
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Under Informative References:
>>>>> [RFC8343]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
>>>>>          Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> 
>>> editor.org%2Finfo%2Frfc8343&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40ora
>>>>> 
>>> nge.com%7Caa068512cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b
>>>>> 
>>> 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e
>>>>> 
>>> yJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
>>>>> 
>>> 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bg339ojOWZvxVQkbkw9eXQtuazGdWaM6dX5iy62NXqM%
>>>>> 3D&reserved=0>. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 6:  Does "independent" refer to 
>>>>> "Indicates"
>>>>> (in which case it should be "independently"), or does it refer to 
>>>>> "operational status" (in which case the current text is correct)?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] It refers to the "operational status".
>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> "Indicates the operational status of the SAP, independent of any 
>>>>> service provisioned over it."; -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Security Considerations:  It appears that RPC 
>>>>> operations do not apply to this document.  Please confirm.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] ACK.
>>>> 
>>>>> If you have any questions, please see
>>>>> 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fops%2Fyang-security-
>>>>> 
>>> guidelines&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa06851
>>>>> 
>>> 2cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7
>>>>> 
>>> C0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD
>>>>> 
>>> AiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s
>>>>> 
>>> data=7hC%2FMAswX%2Fot7p8qwtaWrZfrRRzpOwwLl2EUWnWlZjU%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>> 
>>>>> for details. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Appendix D:  This sentence did not parse.  We 
>>>>> updated the text per the last sentence of Appendix A, Paragraph 1.  
>>>>> If this update is incorrect, please clarify the meaning of "and 
>>>>> that none of ...".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> This is
>>>>> particularly inferred from the administrative 'service-status'
>>>>> which
>>>>> is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services that 
>>>>> are supported by these two SAPs and that none of the anomalies 
>>>>> discussed in Section 5 are detected.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently:
>>>>> This is
>>>>> particularly inferred from the administrative 'service-status', 
>>>>> which is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services 
>>>>> that are supported by these two SAPs.  Note that none of the 
>>>>> anomalies discussed in Section 5 are detected. -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] What about:
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> This is
>>>> particularly inferred from (1) the administrative 'service-
>>> status' which
>>>> is set to 'ietf-vpn-common:admin-down' for all the services that
>>> are
>>>> supported by these two SAPs and (2) the absence of the anomalies
>>> discussed
>>>> in Section 5.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion
>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> online Style Guide at
>>>>> 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> 
>>> editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C
>>>>> 
>>> 01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa068512cee44609f0ca08db5b05
>>>>> 
>>> 5b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6382038511140727
>>>>> 
>>> 26%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
>>>>> 
>>> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FxEg4CmJqMrsXj
>>>>> xFxczqrWX%2FhaHMphrGkImd8eCWeHE%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. -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] ACK.
>>>> 
>>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] The following term was used inconsistently in this 
>>>>> document.  We chose to use the latter form.  Please let us know any 
>>>>> objections.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IETF network slice / IETF Network Slice (per
>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-19) -->
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [Med] OK.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor/lb/rv
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 22, 2023, at 1:30 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>> 
>>>>> Updated 2023/05/22
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> 
>>> editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%
>>>>> 
>>> 7Caa068512cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5
>>>>> 
>>> d20%7C0%7C0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM
>>>>> 
>>> C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7
>>>>> 
>>> C%7C%7C&sdata=3X0NPJbD6s7SjNjcCgf3d4pr7%2FD3w7esNWzUEH0TK%2Fw%3D&r
>>>>> eserved=0).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>>>>> trustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-
>>>>> 
>>> info%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa068512ce
>>>>> 
>>> e44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%
>>>>> 
>>> 7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
>>>>> 
>>> CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdat
>>>>> a=B0gciAKpYepmwZWLRH6Tbv4JE6IEMdCZWUaybG3OrMc%3D&reserved=0).
>>>>> 
>>>>> *  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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-
>>>>> 
>>> vocabulary&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa06851
>>>>> 
>>> 2cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7
>>>>> 
>>> C0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD
>>>>> 
>>> AiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s
>>>>> 
>>> data=IcRNNGnHecShyTp1hHzpP2vQPzREsoWILEQ%2B%2BsbNXn8%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>> .
>>>>> 
>>>>> *  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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>>>>> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-
>>>>> 
>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7
>>>>> 
>>> Caa068512cee44609f0ca08db5b055b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d
>>>>> 
>>> 20%7C0%7C0%7C638203851114072726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
>>>>> 
>>> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C
>>>>> 
>>> %7C%7C&sdata=5K2ALQOAyoHogs8kmSa6eYHpDGLAfUtNE8ojWfxcOEQ%3D&reserv
>>>>> ed=0
>>>>> 
>>>>>  *  The archive itself:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>>>>> 
>>> mailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C
>>>>> 
>>> 01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Caa068512cee44609f0ca08db5b05
>>>>> 
>>> 5b54%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6382038511140727
>>>>> 
>>> 26%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
>>>>> 
>>> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BRtJa3WaEgZliR
>>>>> ajCaGS%2FdUC5tFiu3axU9yZXszk8tE%3D&reserved=0
>>>>> 
>>>>>  *  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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ___________________________________________________
>> 
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> 
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>> 
> 
> 
>