Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We note that there is no mention of an "sr-protocol grouping" in RFC 9020, but it does use "'sr-control-plane' grouping". Should the parenthetical text below be updated to match what appears in RFC 9020? Original: * OSPF instance level configuration imported from the ietf-segment- routing-mpls YANG module including the mapping server bindings and the per-protocol Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) (refer to the sr-protocol grouping [RFC9020]). Perhaps: * OSPF instance level configuration imported from the ietf-segment- routing-mpls YANG module including the mapping server bindings and the per-protocol Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) (refer to the "sr-control-plane" grouping [RFC9020]). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFCs 8665 and 8666 use "Extended Prefix Range TLV" rather than "extended range TLV". May we update the two list items below to match the corresponding RFCs? Original: * OSPFv2 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8665] in the OSPF Extended-Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. ... * OSPFv3 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. Perhaps: * OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Range TLV encodings [RFC8665] in the OSPF Extended-Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. ... * OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. --> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have removed the following items from their corresponding lists in Section 2 as they were each listed twice. Original: * OSPFv2 Prefix SID Sub-TLV encodings [RFC8665] included the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV which is advertised in the OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. ... * OSPFv3 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. ... * OSPFv3 Adj-SID Sub-TLV [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. --> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that there is no mention of "Extended Prefix Range TLV" in RFC 8362, but it is defined in RFC 8666 (note that "Intra-Area-Prefix TLV", "Inter-Area-Prefix TLV", and "External-Prefix TLV" are defined in RFC 8362). Please review and let us know if/how the text or citation should be updated for correctness. Original: * OSPFv3 Prefix-SID Sub-TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 Intra- Area Prefix TLV, Inter-Area Prefix TLV, External Prefix TLV, and OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV [RFC8362]. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] are not referenced in the YANG module but are listed in the introductory text for the YANG module. Additionally, [RFC8665], [RFC8666], [RFC9020], and [RFC9129] are referenced in the YANG module but are not listed in the introductory text. May we update the introductory text as follows? Note that, if yes, we will also remove the references for [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] from the Normative References section. Original: [RFC2328], [RFC4915], [RFC5340], [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC9587], and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] are referenced in the YANG module. Perhaps: [RFC4915], [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8665], [RFC8666], [RFC9020]. [RFC9129], [RFC9587], and [RFC9855] are referenced in the YANG module. --> 7) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this description text in the YANG module, particularly with "interface" repeated. Please review and let us know how it should be updated for clarity. Original: This augments broadcast and non-broadcast multi-access interface segment routing interface configuration. Perhaps: This augments broadcast and non-broadcast multi-access interface Segment Routing and interface configuration. --> 8) <!--[rfced] We have updated this description text in the YANG module for clarity. Please review and confirm that the intended meaning has not been altered. Original: A path providing node a disjoint path for SRLG links from the primary path will be selected over one that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path. Current: A path providing a node with a disjoint path for SRLG links from the primary path will be selected over a path that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path. --> 9) <!--[rfced] We note that Derek Yeung is listed as an author in the YANG module but is not listed as an author of this document. Should we remove his name from the YANG module and add it to the Acknowledgements section? Original: Author: Derek Yeung <mailto:[email protected]> --> 10) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have made some updates to the Security Considerations to match Section 3.7 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please let us know if any further updates are needed. Specifically: - Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." --> 11) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations a) 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. IP Fast Reroute (IP-FRR) No Penultimate Hop-Popping) (No-PHP) Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) b) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document for consistency? Adjacency Segment Identifier, adjacency Segment ID, adjacency SID (Adj-SID) Denial-of-Service (DoS) Remote LFA (RLFA) Segment ID, Segment Identifier (SID) Segment Routing Mapping Server, SR Mapping Server (SRMS) Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) c) FYI, we updated the expansion of "SRLG" from "Shared Resource Link Group" to "Shared Risk Link Group" to match how it is expanded in past RFCs. d) FYI, we updated one instance of "SRBG" to "SRGB" (Section 4) to match usage in the rest of the document. --> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. Segment Routing vs. segment routing b) For consistency and to reflect how they appear in previously published RFCs, we have updated the terminology to the form on the right. Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed. Adj-SID sub-TLV, Adj-SID sub-tlv, Adj-sid sub-tlv > Adj-SID Sub-TLV Prefix SID Sub-TLV, prefix SID sub-TLV, Prefix SID sub-TLV > Prefix-SID Sub-TLV --> 13) <!-- [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 Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Nov 21, 2025, at 10:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/11/21 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 * [email protected] (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). * [email protected], 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, [email protected] 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/rfc9903.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9903 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9903 (draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-50) Title : A YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing over the MPLS Data Plane Author(s) : Y. Qu, A. Lindem, Z. Zhang, I. Chen WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
