rfc9835v3.txt		rfc9835.txt
	skipping to change at line 12 ¶		skipping to change at line 12 ¶
	Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair, Ed.		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair, Ed.
	Request for Comments: 9835 Orange		Request for Comments: 9835 Orange
	Category: Standards Track R. Roberts		Category: Standards Track R. Roberts
	ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper		ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper
	O. Gonzalez de Dios		O. Gonzalez de Dios
	Telefonica		Telefonica
	S. Barguil		S. Barguil
	Nokia		Nokia
	B. Wu		B. Wu
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	August 2025		September 2025
	A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits		A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies a network model for attachment circuits		This document specifies a network model for attachment circuits
	(ACs). The model can be used for the provisioning of ACs prior to or		(ACs). The model can be used for the provisioning of ACs prior to or
	during service provisioning (e.g., VPN, RFC 9543 Network Slice		during service provisioning (e.g., VPN, RFC 9543 Network Slice
	Service). A companion service model is specified in "YANG Data		Service). A companion service model is specified in "YANG Data
	Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)"		Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)"
	(RFC9834).		(RFC9834).
	The module augments the base network ('ietf-network') and the Service		The module augments the base network ('ietf-network') and the Service
	Attachment Point (SAP) models with the detailed information for the		Attachment Point (SAP) models with the detailed information for the
	provisioning of ACs in Provider Edges (PEs).		provisioning of ACs in Provider Edges (PEs).
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This is an Internet Standards Track document.		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	skipping to change at line 131 ¶		skipping to change at line 131 ¶
	and the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) [RFC9182] to bind LxVPNs to ACs		and the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) [RFC9182] to bind LxVPNs to ACs
	that are provisioned using the procedure defined in this document.		that are provisioned using the procedure defined in this document.
	This document leverages [RFC9182] and [RFC9291] by adopting an AC		This document leverages [RFC9182] and [RFC9291] by adopting an AC
	provisioning structure that uses data nodes that are defined in those		provisioning structure that uses data nodes that are defined in those
	RFCs. Some refinements were introduced to cover not only		RFCs. Some refinements were introduced to cover not only
	conventional service provider networks but also specifics of other		conventional service provider networks but also specifics of other
	target deployments (e.g., cloud network).		target deployments (e.g., cloud network).
	The AC network model is designed as augmentations of both the 'ietf-		The AC network model is designed as augmentations of both the 'ietf-
	network' model [RFC8345] and the SAP model [RFC9408]. An AC can be		network' model [RFC8345] and the Service Attachment Point (SAP) model
	bound to a single or multiple SAPs. Likewise, the model is designed		[RFC9408]. An AC can be bound to a single or multiple SAPs.
	to accommodate deployments where a SAP can be bound to one or		Likewise, the model is designed to accommodate deployments where a
	multiple ACs (e.g., a parent AC and its child ACs).		SAP can be bound to one or multiple ACs (e.g., a parent AC and its
			child ACs).
	.--.		.--.
	|CE6|		|CE6|
	'-+'		'-+'
	ac | .--. .--.		ac | .--. .--.
	| |CE5+------+------+CE2|		| |CE5+------+------+CE2|
	.-----+-----. '--' | '--'		.-----+-----. '--' | '--'
	| | |ac		| | |ac
	| | |		| | |
	.+. .+. .+.		.+. .+. .+.
	skipping to change at line 193 ¶		skipping to change at line 194 ¶
	The reader should be familiar with the terms defined in Section 2 of		The reader should be familiar with the terms defined in Section 2 of
	[RFC9408].		[RFC9408].
	This document uses the term "network model" as defined in Section 2.1		This document uses the term "network model" as defined in Section 2.1
	of [RFC8969].		of [RFC8969].
	The meanings of the symbols in the YANG tree diagrams are defined in		The meanings of the symbols in the YANG tree diagrams are defined in
	[RFC8340].		[RFC8340].
	LxSM refers to both the Layer 2 Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466] and		LxSM refers to both the L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466] and the
	the Layer 3 Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299].		L3VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299].
	LxNM refers to both the L2VPN Network Model (L2NM) [RFC9291] and the		LxNM refers to both the L2VPN Network Model (L2NM) [RFC9291] and the
	L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) [RFC9182].		L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) [RFC9182].
	LxVPN refers to both L2VPN and L3VPN.		LxVPN refers to both L2VPN and L3VPN.
	The following are used in the module prefixes:		The following are used in the module prefixes:
	ac: Attachment circuit		ac: Attachment circuit
	skipping to change at line 241 ¶		skipping to change at line 242 ¶
	that is provided by a physical link).		that is provided by a physical link).
	Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible for the		Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible for the
	management of the service provider network. One or multiple		management of the service provider network. One or multiple
	network controllers can be deployed in a service provider network.		network controllers can be deployed in a service provider network.
	Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that interacts		Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that interacts
	with the customer of a network service.		with the customer of a network service.
	A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the ACs, the		A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the ACs, the
	PE selection, and requesting the activation of the requested		Provider Edge (PE) selection, and requesting the activation of the
	services to a network controller.		requested services to a network controller.
	A service orchestrator may interact with one or more network		A service orchestrator may interact with one or more network
	controllers.		controllers.
	Service provider network: A network that is able to provide network		Service provider network: A network that is able to provide network
	services (e.g., LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).		services (e.g., LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).
	Service provider: An entity that offers network services (e.g.,		Service provider: An entity that offers network services (e.g.,
	LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).		LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).
	The names of data nodes are prefixed using the prefix associated with		The names of data nodes are prefixed using the prefix associated with
	the corresponding imported YANG module as shown in Table 1:		the corresponding imported YANG module as shown in Table 1:
	+=============+=====================+==========================+		+=============+=====================+==========================+
	| Prefix | Module | Reference |		| Prefix | Module | Reference |
	+=============+=====================+==========================+		+=============+=====================+==========================+
	| ac-common | ietf-ac-common | [RFC9833] |		| ac-common | ietf-ac-common | [RFC9833] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| ac-svc | ietf-ac-svc | Section 5.2 of [RFC9834] |		| ac-svc | ietf-ac-svc | Section 6.2 of [RFC9834] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| dot1q-types | ieee802-dot1q-types | [IEEE802.1Qcp] |		| dot1q-types | ieee802-dot1q-types | [IEEE802.1Qcp] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] |		| if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| inet | ietf-inet-types | Section 4 of [RFC6991] |		| inet | ietf-inet-types | Section 4 of [RFC6991] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| key-chain | ietf-key-chain | [RFC8177] |		| key-chain | ietf-key-chain | [RFC8177] |
	+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+		+-------------+---------------------+--------------------------+
	| nacm | ietf-netconf-acm | [RFC8341] |		| nacm | ietf-netconf-acm | [RFC8341] |
	skipping to change at line 2311 ¶		skipping to change at line 2312 ¶
	Points (SAPs)";		Points (SAPs)";
	}		}
	import ietf-ac-common {		import ietf-ac-common {
	prefix ac-common;		prefix ac-common;
	reference		reference
	"RFC 9833: A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits";		"RFC 9833: A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits";
	}		}
	import ietf-ac-svc {		import ietf-ac-svc {
	prefix ac-svc;		prefix ac-svc;
	reference		reference
	"RFC 9834: YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment		"RFC 9834: YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment
	Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)";		Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)";
	}		}
	organization		organization
	"IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";		"IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";
	contact		contact
	"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>		"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>
	WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>		WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
	Editor: Mohamed Boucadair		Editor: Mohamed Boucadair
	<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>		<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
	skipping to change at line 4267 ¶		skipping to change at line 4268 ¶
	description		description
	"Specifies the ACs that are terminated by the SAP.";		"Specifies the ACs that are terminated by the SAP.";
	uses ac-ntw:attachment-circuit-reference;		uses ac-ntw:attachment-circuit-reference;
	}		}
	}		}
	}		}
	<CODE ENDS>		<CODE ENDS>
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	Several data nodes ('bgp', 'ospf', 'isis', 'rip', and 'customer-key-		This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7.1
	chain') rely upon [RFC8177] for authentication purposes. As such,		of [YANG-GUIDELINES].
	the AC network module inherits the security considerations discussed
	in Section 5 of [RFC8177]. Also, these data nodes support supplying
	explicit keys as strings in ASCII format. The use of keys in
	hexadecimal string format would afford greater key entropy with the
	same number of key-string octets. However, such a format is not
	included in this version of the AC network model, because it is not
	supported by the underlying device modules (e.g., [RFC8695]).
	Section 5.8 specifies the encryption to be applied to traffic for a
	given AC.
	The remainder of this section is modeled after the template described
	in Section 3.7.1 of [YANG-GUIDELINES].
	The "ietf-ac-ntw" YANG module defines a data model that is designed		The "ietf-ac-ntw" YANG module defines a data model that is designed
	to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF		to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF
	[RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have to use a		[RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have to use a
	secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC		secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC
	[RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.		[RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.
	The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]		The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
	provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or		provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
	RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or		RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
	skipping to change at line 4341 ¶		skipping to change at line 4329 ¶
	privacy-related information, which can be used to track a		privacy-related information, which can be used to track a
	customer. Disclosing such information may be considered a		customer. Disclosing such information may be considered a
	violation of the customer-provider trust relationship.		violation of the customer-provider trust relationship.
	'keying-material' and 'customer-key-chain': An attacker can retrieve		'keying-material' and 'customer-key-chain': An attacker can retrieve
	the cryptographic keys protecting an AC (routing, in particular).		the cryptographic keys protecting an AC (routing, in particular).
	These keys could be used to inject spoofed routing advertisements.		These keys could be used to inject spoofed routing advertisements.
	There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations.		There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations.
			Several data nodes ('bgp', 'ospf', 'isis', 'rip', and 'customer-key-
			chain') rely upon the key chains described in [RFC8177] for
			authentication purposes. As such, the AC network module inherits the
			security considerations discussed in Section 5 of [RFC8177]. Also,
			these data nodes support supplying explicit keys as strings in ASCII
			format. The use of keys in hexadecimal string format would afford
			greater key entropy with the same number of key-string octets.
			However, such a format is not included in this version of the AC
			network model, because it is not supported by the underlying device
			modules (e.g., [RFC8695]).
			Section 5.8 specifies the encryption to be applied to traffic for a
			given AC.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" subregistry within		IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" subregistry within
	the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:		the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
	URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-ntw		URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-ntw
	Registrant Contact: The IESG.		Registrant Contact: The IESG.
	XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.		XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
	IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module		IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
	skipping to change at line 4388 ¶		skipping to change at line 4390 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,		[RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.
	[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,		[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
	[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
	Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
	January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private		[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
	Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February		Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
	2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.		2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
	[RFC4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the		[RFC4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the
	skipping to change at line 4428 ¶		skipping to change at line 4426 ¶
	[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP		[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
	Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,		Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
	June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.		June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
	[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for		[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
	the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,		the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
	[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
	and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
	(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
	[RFC6565] Pillay-Esnault, P., Moyer, P., Doyle, J., Ertekin, E., and		[RFC6565] Pillay-Esnault, P., Moyer, P., Doyle, J., Ertekin, E., and
	M. Lundberg, "OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge		M. Lundberg, "OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
	(PE-CE) Routing Protocol", RFC 6565, DOI 10.17487/RFC6565,		(PE-CE) Routing Protocol", RFC 6565, DOI 10.17487/RFC6565,
	June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6565>.		June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6565>.
	[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",		[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
	RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,		RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
	[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting		[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
	skipping to change at line 4456 ¶		skipping to change at line 4449 ¶
	[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,		[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
	"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key		"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
	Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,		Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
	[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",		[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
	RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,		RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
	[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
	Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
	[RFC8077] Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and		[RFC8077] Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and
	Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",		Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",
	STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017,		STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.		[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
	skipping to change at line 4498 ¶		skipping to change at line 4487 ¶
	[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface		[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
	Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,		Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
	[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,		[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
	Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for		Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
	Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March		Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
	2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.		2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
	[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
	Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
	[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
	Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
	[RFC9067] Qu, Y., Tantsura, J., Lindem, A., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data		[RFC9067] Qu, Y., Tantsura, J., Lindem, A., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data
	Model for Routing Policy", RFC 9067, DOI 10.17487/RFC9067,		Model for Routing Policy", RFC 9067, DOI 10.17487/RFC9067,
	October 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9067>.		October 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9067>.
	[RFC9181] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,		[RFC9181] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
	Ed., and Q. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and		Ed., and Q. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and
	Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9181, DOI 10.17487/RFC9181, February		Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9181, DOI 10.17487/RFC9181, February
	2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9181>.		2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9181>.
	[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,		[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
	skipping to change at line 4539 ¶		skipping to change at line 4519 ¶
	June 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9408>.		June 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9408>.
	[RFC9568] Lindem, A. and A. Dogra, "Virtual Router Redundancy		[RFC9568] Lindem, A. and A. Dogra, "Virtual Router Redundancy
	Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 9568,		Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 9568,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9568, April 2024,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9568, April 2024,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9568>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9568>.
	[RFC9833] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios,		[RFC9833] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios,
	O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for		O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for
	Attachment Circuits", RFC 9833, DOI 10.17487/RFC9833,		Attachment Circuits", RFC 9833, DOI 10.17487/RFC9833,
	August 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9833>.		September 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9833>.
	[RFC9834] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios,		[RFC9834] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios,
	O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "YANG Data Models for Bearers		O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "YANG Data Models for Bearers
	and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)", RFC 9834,		and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)", RFC 9834,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9834, August 2025,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9834, September 2025,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9834>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9834>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., Cohen, R., and B.		[RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., Cohen, R., and B.
	Moore, "Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information		Moore, "Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information
	Model", RFC 3644, DOI 10.17487/RFC3644, November 2003,		Model", RFC 3644, DOI 10.17487/RFC3644, November 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3644>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3644>.
			[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
			Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
			January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.
	[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality		[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
	for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,		for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
	[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless		[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
	Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,		Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
			[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
			and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
			(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
	[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function		[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
	Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,		Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
	[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.		[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
	Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,		(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
			[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
			Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
	[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,		[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
	"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,		"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.
	[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",		[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
	BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,		BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
			[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
			Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
	[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG		[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
	Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)		Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
	Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October		Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
	2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.		2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.
	[RFC8695] Liu, X., Sarda, P., and V. Choudhary, "A YANG Data Model		[RFC8695] Liu, X., Sarda, P., and V. Choudhary, "A YANG Data Model
	for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)", RFC 8695,		for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)", RFC 8695,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8695, February 2020,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8695, February 2020,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8695>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8695>.
	[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and		[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
	L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network		L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
	Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,		Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
	January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.		January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.
			[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
			Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
	[RFC9127] Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed., Jethanandani, M., Ed.,		[RFC9127] Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed., Jethanandani, M., Ed.,
	Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for		Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for
	Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9127,		Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9127,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9127, October 2021,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9127, October 2021,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9127>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9127>.
	[RFC9234] Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K.		[RFC9234] Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K.
	Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles		Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles
	in UPDATE and OPEN Messages", RFC 9234,		in UPDATE and OPEN Messages", RFC 9234,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9234, May 2022,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9234, May 2022,
	skipping to change at line 4618 ¶		skipping to change at line 4620 ¶
	[RFC9543] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,		[RFC9543] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
	Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A		Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A
	Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF		Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF
	Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10.17487/RFC9543, March 2024,		Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10.17487/RFC9543, March 2024,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9543>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9543>.
	[RFC9836] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Barguil, S., and O.		[RFC9836] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Barguil, S., and O.
	Gonzalez de Dios, "A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN		Gonzalez de Dios, "A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN
	Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits",		Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits",
	RFC 9836, DOI 10.17487/RFC9836, August 2025,		RFC 9836, DOI 10.17487/RFC9836, September 2025,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9836>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9836>.
	[YANG-GUIDELINES]		[YANG-GUIDELINES]
	Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for		Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for
	Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data		Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data
	Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-		Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
	netmod-rfc8407bis-28, 5 June 2025,		netmod-rfc8407bis-28, 5 June 2025,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-		<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-
	rfc8407bis-28>.		rfc8407bis-28>.
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	54 lines changed or deleted		56 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.