Sorry for the spam. Hi Alanna,
Could you please also update my affiliation and email address, in addition to removing the last paragraph in the “Acknowledgments” section? Thanks, Helen > On Nov 25, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > Thanks for the update. Could you please also remove the last paragraph in > the “Acknowledgments” section, about "Author affiliation with The MITRE > Corporation…”. > > Thanks, > Helen > >> On Nov 25, 2025, at 3:58 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. >> >> ) FYI - We have moved Derek Yeung’s name out of the YANG module and into >> this sentence in the Acknowledgements section. Please review and let us know >> if any further updates are needed. >> >> Original: >> The authors wish to thank Dean Bogdanovic and Kiran Koushik Agrahara >> Sreenivasa for their YANG module discussions. >> >> Current: >> The authors wish to thank Dean Bogdanovic, Kiran Koushik Agrahara >> Sreenivasa, and Derek Yeung for their YANG module discussions. >> >>> 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]> >>> --> >>> >>> [Yingzhen]: Yes, please add Derek to the acknowledgements. >> >> >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.xml >> >> The relevant diff files are posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 >> changes) >> >> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once >> published as RFCs. >> >> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each >> author prior to moving forward in the publication process. >> >> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9903 >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:55 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks to Yingzhen for adding my new email address. >>> >>> Hello RFC Editor, >>> >>> Please update my (Ing-Wher Chen) email address and affiliation if possible. >>> Along with the affiliation change, please also remove the last paragraph >>> in the “Acknowledgments” section. That paragraph currently states "Author >>> affiliation with The MITRE Corporation…”. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Helen >>> >>>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 2:30 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
