Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.txt

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Acee, Jim, and Yingzhen.

Thank you for the emails.

Jim, we will place this document on IESG hold momentarily and will wait to hear from you again before releasing it and making further updates as appropriate.

Thanks again.

RFC Editor/lb

> On Oct 13, 2023, at 12:32 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim and Lynne,
>  We’ll send an email to the RTGWG list to explain the changes, and solicit the WG feedback about the change.
>  Thanks,
> Yingzhen


> On Oct 13, 2023, at 12:25 PM, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Acee,
> 
> This amount of change needs to be verified by the WG before I will approve it.
> 
> Jeff/Yingzhen, while the explanation for the changes seems reasonable enough to me I would still like for this to be highlighted to the WG so that any objections or concerns can be raised. Please initiate a short WGLC with an explanation of the proposed changes and if the WG comes to a consensus I will move the document forward.
> 
> RFC-editor please hold publication pending AD go-ahead.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jim


> On Oct 13, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2023, at 15:12, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lynne,
>> 
>> As the responsible AD for this document, I DO NOT approve these changes.
>> 
>> I would like to understand why multiple changes have been made to the document and whether the chairs have obtained WG consensus for these changes. The changes look like additions rather than error corrections.
> 
> The problem we noticed is that the same nodes were already being added for these two protocols. You can add them twice - the alternative was to use a different name in the RIB extension augmentation but that seem more disruptive than avoiding the conflict. Please talk to someone familiar with the YANG protocol and you’ll understand that these are, in fact, corrections. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee


> On Oct 13, 2023, at 12:12 PM, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
> As the responsible AD for this document, I DO NOT approve these changes.
> 
> I would like to understand why multiple changes have been made to the document and whether the chairs have obtained WG consensus for these changes. The changes look like additions rather than error corrections.
> 
> Jeff/Yingzhen, please advise.
> 
> Jim

> On Oct 13, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> We noted that there were conflicts with the existing ietf-ospf.yang and ietf-isis.yang modules which required the constraints. 
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2023, at 14:56, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear *AD (Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston, or James Guichard),
>> 
>> This document is in the AUTH48 state as RFC-to-be 9403.  Please review the diff file as submitted by the Secretariat earlier today, and let us know if it is acceptable to make these updates in RFC-to-be 9403.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2023, at 11:40 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A new version (-23) has been submitted for draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.txt
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend/
>>> 
>>> Diff from previous version:
>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-23
>>> 
>>> IETF Secretariat.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> From: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9403 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-22> for your review
>>> Date: October 2, 2023 at 4:16:54 PM PDT
>>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [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
>>> 
>>> 
>