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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear IANA,

We are preparing this document for publication.

Please make the following update on <https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-rib-extension.txt>:

OLD:
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

NEW (please change the comma to a semicolon, to fix the run-on sentence):
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb


> On Nov 15, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Yingzhen and Acee.
> 
> We have updated your contact information per your notes below.
> 
> 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
> 
> Yingzhen, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9403
> 
> We will ask IANA to make a quick punctuation update and will then move this document forward for publication.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 1:12 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lynne,
>> 
>> Please update my affiliation from "Futurewei" to "Futurewei Technologies".
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yingzhen
> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> HI Lynne,
>> 
>> I agree with these changes as well. I noticed that my contact information has “LabN Consulting LLC” rather than “LabN Consulting, L.L.C.” can you update it to be consistent with other LabN Consulting authors (e.g., RFC 9179 and RFC 8819). 
>> 
>> Acee-Lindems-iMac-2:Downloads acee$ diff -c rfc9403.txt.orig rfc9403.txt
>> *** rfc9403.txt.orig Tue Nov 14 15:51:14 2023
>> --- rfc9403.txt Tue Nov 14 15:52:02 2023
>> ***************
>> *** 3,9 ****
>> 
>> 
>>  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Lindem
>> ! Request for Comments: 9403                           LabN Consulting LLC
>>  Category: Standards Track                                          Y. Qu
>>  ISSN: 2070-1721                                                Futurewei
>>                                                             November 2023
>> --- 3,9 ----
>> 
>> 
>>  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Lindem
>> ! Request for Comments: 9403                       LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
>>  Category: Standards Track                                          Y. Qu
>>  ISSN: 2070-1721                                                Futurewei
>>                                                             November 2023
>> ***************
>> *** 1195,1201 ****
>>  Authors' Addresses
>> 
>>     Acee Lindem
>> !    LabN Consulting LLC
>>     301 Midenhall Way
>>     Cary, NC 27513
>>     United States of America
>> --- 1195,1201 ----
>>  Authors' Addresses
>> 
>>     Acee Lindem
>> !    LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
>>     301 Midenhall Way
>>     Cary, NC 27513
>>     United States of America
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 12:40 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lynne,
>> 
>> The changes look good to me.
>> 
>> For the last paragraph in Section 1, I agree with your suggestion to keep it as plural.
>> 
>> I approve this version of the draft.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Yingzhen
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:51 AM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi, Yingzhen.
>> 
>> We have made further updates to this document per your notes below.
>> 
>> Regarding your question about the plural "YANG modules" in the last paragraph of Section 1, which says "The YANG modules defined and discussed in this document":
>> 
>> If the "and discussed" here does not refer to the other YANG modules mentioned in this document (e.g., we see "The YANG module defined in this document augments the ietf-routing, ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing, and ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing YANG modules defined in [RFC8349]" in Section 3), then yes, it should be the singular "module".  Please advise.
>> 
>> = = = = =
>> 
>> Regarding the inconsistent quoting of prefix entries:  Thank you for spotting that!
>> 
>> We found that post-8916 YANG RFCs do not quote the prefix entries, so we removed the quotes around "ospf" and "isis".
>> For example, RFC 9129 has
>>   prefix ospf;
>> and RFC 9130 has
>>   prefix isis;
>> 
>> 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 for your help and your good catch!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2023, at 12:11 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Lynne,
>>> 
>>> There are a few more places that need changes.
>>> 
>>> In Appendix B (2 instances for each change):
>>> original: 
>>> <route-preference>110</route-preference>
>>> <source-protocol xmlns:ospf="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
>>> ietf-ospf">ospf:ospf</source-protocol>
>>> 
>>> Change to:
>>> <route-preference>120</route-preference>
>>> <source-protocol xmlns:rip="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
>>> ietf-rip">rip:rip</source-protocol>
>>> Original:
>>> "route-preference": 110,
>>> "source-protocol": "ietf-ospf:ospf",
>>> Change to:
>>> "route-preference": 120,
>>> "source-protocol": "ietf-rip:rip",
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingzhen
>>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2023, at 2:01 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Lynne,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the changes.
>>> 
>>> I found the following nits that need to be fixed:
>>>    • 
>>> This document includes only one module, so should the last paragraph in section 1 change to "The YANG module"?
>>>    • section 5 inside the module, when importing ietf-ospf and ietf-isis modules, the prefixes have " ", while the imports above don't.
>>>    • In grouping repair-path, the description of metric:
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>>              The metric for the repair path. While the IPFR
>>>              reroute repair is local and the metric is notSuggestion:
>>>            The metric for the repair path. While the
>>>            reroute repair is local and the metric is not
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yingzhen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:49 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 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)
>> 
>