Hi Alana, I just have a couple editorial comments. See attached diff.
Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9902.orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Nov 25, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > All, > > Thank you for your replies. Gunter’s approval has bee noted on the AUTH48 > status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > > We have also updated the files with the additional requested changes. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from each > author prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:48 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello RFCEditor, >> >> Yes, 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 25, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Inline: GV> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 8:19 PM >>> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>; Yingzhen >>> Qu <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >>> <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura >>> <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Editor RFC <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; auth48archive >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9902 <draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31> for >>> your review >>> >>> >>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking >>> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional >>> information. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Authors and Gunter (AD)*, >>> >>> *Gunter - As the AD please review and approve of the following changes: >>> - Section 2: deleted sentence of repetitive text >>> >>> GV> Approved >>> >>> - Section 6.1: added reference entry to RFC 8402 in the Normative >>> References section >>> >>> GV> Approved >>> >>> Additionally, we asked the authors about the Security Considerations text, >>> as it does not exactly match what appears in Section 3.7 of >>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please review Section 4 and confirm that >>> the missing sentence and added paragraphs are acceptable. >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> GV> Approved. There is a clause in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28 that >>> approves this. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> GV> Approved. The claim is valid and accurate >>> >>> See this diff file: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html >>> >>> GV> Many thanks, >>> >>> G/ >>> RTG AD >>> >>> >>> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. >>> >>> ) We note that Yingzhen has added Helen’s new email address to this thread. >>> Should her email address and affiliation be updated in the document? >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml >>> >>> The relevant diff files are posted here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-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 and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>> >>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 4:28 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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-4Q9l2USxI >>>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>>> >>>> * 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]
