Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9403 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the style of the document title to more
closely match that of other YANG RFCs?

Please note that for now we updated the title for this document, as
listed in Section 5, to match the current first-page document title.

Original title:
 RIB Extension YANG Data Model

Original from the module in Section 5: 
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions.";

Suggested (as originally cited in Section 5; we would revert the
  change in Section 5 to match)):
 A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  Because only one ietf-routing YANG module is
defined in [RFC8349], we changed "modules" to "module" in this
sentence, per "the ietf-routing YANG module [RFC8349]" in Section 1.
If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text (e.g., perhaps
all three relevant modules from RFC 8349 should be listed here and in
Section 1?).

Original:
 The YANG module defined in this document augments the ietf-routing
 YANG modules defined in [RFC8349], which provide a basis for routing
 system data model development.

Currently:
 The YANG module defined in this document augments the ietf-routing
 YANG module defined in [RFC8349], which provides a basis for routing
 system data model development. -->


4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and 5:  We previously received guidance from
Benoit Claise and the YANG Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG
data model" are preferred.  We have updated the text to use these
forms.  Please review, and let us know any concerns.

Original:
 Together with YANG modules defined in
 [RFC8349], a generic RIB YANG model is defined to implement and
 monitor a RIB.
...
5.  RIB Extension YANG Model

Currently:
 Together with the ietf-routing YANG
 module and other YANG modules defined in [RFC8349], a generic RIB
 YANG data model is defined herein to implement and monitor a RIB.
...
5.  RIB Extension YANG Module -->


5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:  We could not parse this sentence.
If the suggested text is not correct, please provide clarifying text.

Original:
 The following tree snapshot shows tag and preference which augment
 static IPv4 unicast routes and IPv6 unicast routes next-hop.

Suggested:
 The following tree snapshot shows tag and preference entries that
 augment static IPv4 unicast route and IPv6 unicast route next hops. -->


6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Would you like to add an introductory
paragraph listing the references provided in the YANG module?

Original:
 5. RIB Extension YANG Model

   <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"

Possibly:
 5.  RIB Extension YANG Module

    This YANG module references [RFC6991], [RFC8343], [RFC8349], and
    [RFC5714].

    <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]" -->


7) <!-- [rfced] We checked the module using pyang; it parses successfully.  Note that we have updated the formatting to match the output of pyang with the formatting option.  Please let us know if you have any concerns. 
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  As it appears that a lower preference value
is preferable, we updated this sentence (4 instances) as follows.
If this is not correct, please provide clarifying text.

Original:
 Routes with a lower preference next-hop are
 preferred and equal preference routes result in
 Equal-Cost-Multi-Path (ECMP) static routes.

Currently (first instance; "ECMP" used thereafter):
 Routes with a lower next-hop preference value
 are preferred, and equal-preference routes result in
 Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) static routes. -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Section 6:  We see "RPC (Remote
Procedure Call) operation" in Section 2 but do not see any other
mention of RPC operations in this document.  Please confirm that
the "Some of the RPC operations" paragraph as listed on
<https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines> is not
applicable to this document (and if it isn't applicable, is the "RPC
(Remote Procedure Call) operation" listing in Section 2 still
necessary?). -->


10) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Appendix B:  Per
<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/formal-languages-use/>,
may we cite [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] ("Extensible Markup Language (XML)
1.0 (Fifth Edition)") here and list it as a Normative Reference, per
RFC 8349?

Original:
 The following is an XML example using the RIB extension module and
 RFC 8349.

Suggested:
 The following is an XML example [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] using the RIB
 extension module and module data from RFC 8349.

Under Normative References:
 [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
            Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
            F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
            (Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
            REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
            <https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/>. -->


11) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the note in this document
should be in the <aside> element.  It is defined as "a container for
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). -->


12) <!-- [rfced] Authors and *[AD]:  Appendix B:  Would you like to cite
RFC 7951 ("JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG") here and add a
corresponding reference listing?  If yes, please let us know whether
the listing should be Normative or Informative.

Original:
 The following is the same example using JSON format.

Possibly:
 The following is the same example using JSON format [RFC 7951].
...
 [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
            RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>. -->


13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->


14) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.

 ietf-rib-extensions.yang (1 instance /
   ietf-rib-extension.yang (20 instances) *

   * Please note that if the plural "extensions" is correct, we will
   update this document accordingly and also ask IANA to update their
   corresponding pages. -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Oct 2, 2023, at 4:11 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/02

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9403.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9403

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9403 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22)

Title            : RIB Extension YANG Data Model
Author(s)        : A. Lindem, Y. Qu
WG Chair(s)      : Jeff Tantsura, Yingzhen Qu
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston