Weidong Xu

Note that according to Johan, there should not be a new model for request (at least for PUT), as he expect a single round-trip model. E.g. request and response model...

The api-version included supposed to be approved in RPSaaSMaster. However I've no idea why we use -beta or -privatepreview as api-version. Hence requesting sign-off from ARM.

please check the LintDiff

@alexkarcher-msft This https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/21015/checks?check_run_id=8970229390 It is a required CI. I cannot merge if it fails.

/azp run

1. You need to pass ARM review 2. I am re-running the CI to see if I can get clearer message, but if no, you can ask in channel as...

@alexkarcher-msft [MISSING_RESOURCE_ID](https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/blob/master/documentation/Semantic-and-Model-Violations-Reference.md#MISSING_RESOURCE_ID) is a new rule. You can either fix them, or add suppression (that would needs another suppression review by tooling).

Sure. Also as a new rule, it might have bug. I would expect e.g. Resource and ProxyResource always have "id" in response.

what's the difference compared to https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs/pull/20925 ?

please use draft for this case