Hi, Thanks for working on this document. Please see my answers below inline.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:57 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. --> > [Yingzhen]: I don't think we need more than what's in the title. > > 2) <!--[rfced] We note that BCP 14 key words are not used in this document. > Therefore, we have removed the keywords paragraph in Section 1.1 and in > the YANG module. We have also removed the references to RFCs 2119 and 8174. > --> > > [Yingzhen]: ok. > > 3) <!--[rfced] This text in Section 2 reflects text in Section 1. As it is > repeating information, may we remove this text from Section 2? > > Original (Section 1): > This document defines a device YANG data model [RFC7950] that can be > used to manage IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8667] over > the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation to the IS-IS YANG data > model [RFC9130]. > > Original (Section 2): > This document defines a YANG data model for IS-IS Extensions for > Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation of > the IS-IS base model. > --> > > [ Yingzhen]: I'm ok with the suggested removal. > > 4) <!--[rfced] RFC 8402 is only cited in the YANG module. May we add a > citation to RFC 8402 to the this sentence preceding the YANG module > as well as add a reference in the Normative References section? > > Original: > [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8667], [RFC9020], > [RFC9130], and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] are referenced > in the YANG module. > > Perhaps: > [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8402], [RFC8667], > [RFC9020], [RFC9130], and [RFC9855] are referenced > in the YANG module. > ... > [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., > Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment > Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, > July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. > --> > > [Yingzhen]: Yes, please. > > 5) <!--[rfced] These two sentences in the description clauses of the YANG > module are phrased similarly. Should they be rephrased to match? If yes, > should "IP" appear before "FRR" or before "interface"? > > Original: > This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP FRR with TILFA. > ... > This augments ISIS IP interface level-2 FRR with TILFA. > --> > > [Yingzhen]: It should be "This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP FRR with TILFA." and "This augments ISIS interface level-2 IP FRR with TILFA." . > > 6) <!--[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. > --> > > [Yingzhen]: The suggested change is fine. > > 7) <!--[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. We note some differences, specifically: > > a) Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no > particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." > > [Yingzhen]: this should not be added as we have listed some sensitive writable nodes. b) These paragraphs do not appear in the template. Please confirm they > should remain. > > Original: > The ability to disable or enable IS-IS Segment Routing support and/or > change Segment Routing configurations can result in a Denial-of- > Service (DoS) attack, as this may cause traffic to be dropped or > misrouted. Please refer to Section 5 of [RFC8667] for more > information on Segment Routing extensions. > ... > Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can disclose > the operational state information of IS-IS protocol on a device. > --> > > [Yingzhen]: yes, they should remain. > > 8) <!--[rfced] 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? > > Adjacency Segment Identifier, adjacency SID, adjacency Segment ID > (Adj-SID) > Link State Database (LSDB) > Remote LFA (RLFA) > Segment Routing (SR) > --> > > [Yingzhen]: We should use the acronym after the first use. > > 9) <!--[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 10:56 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/rfc9902.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9902 (draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31) > > Title : A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing over the > MPLS Data Plane > Author(s) : S. Litkowski, Y. Qu, A. Lindem, I. Chen, J. Tantsura > 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]
