Adding Helen's new email address. Thanks, Yingzhen
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:58 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
