[auth48] Re: [IANA #1456011] [IANA] Re: Final Review: RFC-to-be 10016 (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config) in XML

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi David.

No worries! The update looks good.

Thank you!
Alanna Paloma 
RFC Production Center

> On Jul 22, 2026, at 1:12 PM, David Dong via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alanna,
> 
> Apologies for the delay on this. We've made the update:
> 
> URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore
> Registrant Contact: The IESG
> XML: N/A; the requested URIs are XML namespaces.
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-system-datastore.txt
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David Dong
> IANA Services Sr. Specialist
> 
> On Wed Jul 15 21:04:41 2026, [e-mail] wrote:
>> IANA,
>> 
>> Please make this minor punctuation update in the Registrant Contact
>> field for this XML namespace URI in the “ns” registry at
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-system-
>> datastore.txt>.
>> 
>> Old:
>>  URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore
>>  Registrant Contact: The IESG.
>> 
>> New:
>>  URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore
>>  Registrant Contact: The IESG
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Alanna Paloma
>> RFC Production Center
>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2026, at 12:51 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]-
>>> editor.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Chong, Qin, and Mahesh*,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your approvals. They’ve been noted here:
>>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/
>>> 
>>> *Mahesh - We have updated the text per your suggestion. As you noted
>>> that more changes to the template are actively being discussed, we
>>> will hold publication of this document until we hear further from
>>> you.
>>> 
>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.pdf
>>> 
>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-diff.html (comprehensive
>>> diff)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-auth48diff.html (Final
>>> Review changes)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-auth48rfcdiff.html
>>> (Final Review changes side by side)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-lastdiff.html (last
>>> version to this one)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
>>> between last version and this)
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alanna Paloma
>>> RFC Production Center
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 15, 2026, at 10:42 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Alanna,
>>>> 
>>>> I have looked at the changes you have made for question #5. Most of
>>>> the changes look good to me. However, there is more change that we
>>>> have to make (and something that I need to update the wiki also
>>>> with) is the following:
>>>> 
>>>> In the second paragraph, the template text is getting updated to say
>>>> the following. Note, this is still being debated, and we can expect
>>>> some more changes to the text.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> (1) have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH)
>>>> [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and (2) have to use
>>>> mutual authentication.
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> 
>>>> (1) have to use a secure transport layer and (2) have to use
>>>> mutual authentication (e.g., Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252],
>>>> TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]).
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Authors and *AD,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve
>>>>> (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the
>>>>> source file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *AD, please review question #5 below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that most of the recently published RFCs
>>>>> containing YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model
>>>>> for...", for example:
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical
>>>>> Networks (WSONs)
>>>>> RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types
>>>>> RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please consider whether the title of this document should be
>>>>> updated.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> System-Defined Configuration
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     A YANG Data Model for System-Defined Configuration
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Per guidance from Section 2 of RFC 8340, we moved
>>>>> the
>>>>> lines in the YANG tree diagram (in Section 7.1) over two spaces
>>>>> to the left. Please review and let us know of any objections.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] Because XML examples are present in this document,
>>>>> we
>>>>> added a citation to W3C in Section 7.3 and a corresponding entry
>>>>> under the Informative References section.  Please let us know if
>>>>> this is agreeable or if you prefer otherwise.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> The following example shows how the configuration in <system>
>>>>> could
>>>>> be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation.  The example
>>>>> uses
>>>>> the "example-application" fictional data model defined in
>>>>> Appendix A.1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> The following example shows how the configuration in <system> could
>>>>> be retrieved in a NETCONF <get-data> RPC operation.  The example
>>>>> uses XML [W3C.XML1.0] and the "example-application" fictional data
>>>>> model defined in Appendix A.1.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - In Section 7.3, note that we moved the example
>>>>> over
>>>>> three spaces to the left because
>>>>> "xmlns:sysds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore">"
>>>>> was 3 characters over the limit.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] *[AD] We have altered some text in the Security
>>>>> Considerations section to match the boilerplate text at
>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>. Also
>>>>> note that paragraph 4 varies from the template (we attempted to
>>>>> make it match more closely). Please review and let us know if any
>>>>> further updates are needed or if the text is agreeable as is.
>>>>>        -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module examples have been updated
>>>>> per
>>>>> the formatting option of pyang.  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) example-application has been updated as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app
>>>>> prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) example-acl has been updated as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> prefix "ex-acl" -> prefix ex-acl
>>>>> prefix "ex-app" -> prefix ex-app
>>>>> prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
>>>>> 
>>>>> c) example-interface has been updated as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> prefix "ex-if" -> prefix ex-if
>>>>> prefix "inet"  -> prefix inet
>>>>> key name       -> key "name"
>>>>> 
>>>>> d) example-interface-management has been updated as follows:
>>>>> 
>>>>> prefix "ex-ifm" -> prefix ex-ifm
>>>>> prefix "inet"   -> prefix inet
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that the following system configuration
>>>>> terms are
>>>>> hyphenated. Are these specific terms that should always appear
>>>>> hyphenated? We are confirming because adverbs ending in "ly" are
>>>>> not typically hyphenated in the RFC Series, and we could not find
>>>>> the hyphenated forms of these terms in past RFCs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the hyphens are not essential, we would remove them from
>>>>> "immediately-present" and "conditionally-present", and we would
>>>>> hyphenate "always present" only when in attributive position
>>>>> (i.e., when followed by a noun). Please let us know your
>>>>> preference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> always-present
>>>>> conditionally-present
>>>>> immediately-present
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
>>>>> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
>>>>> Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully
>>>>> to ensure correctness.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Access Control List (ACL)
>>>>> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 9) <!-- [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.  Updates of this nature
>>>>> typically
>>>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
>>>>> should
>>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alanna Paloma and Karen Moore
>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 6, 2026, at 4:24 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Final Review for RFC-to-be 10016 <draft-ietf-netmod-system-config>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously
>>>>> 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;
>>>>> see the Unavailable Authors section
>>>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-
>>>>> authors).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 an archival mailing list
>>>>>   to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC
>>>>> editorial
>>>>>   queue; 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/rfc10016.xml
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.pdf
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-diff.html
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>> side)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10016-xmldiff1.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
>>>>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10016/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC 10016 (draft-ietf-netmod-system-config)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Title            : System-defined Configuration
>>>>> Author(s)        : Q. Ma, Ed.,
>>>>>                Q. Wu,
>>>>>                C. Feng
>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Kent Watsen, Lou Berger
>>>>> Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>