Hi Alanna, This looks good to me. Note that the wdiff is confusing in that it looks like you left some blank lines. I looked at the .txt version to verify.
Thanks, Acee > On Dec 1, 2025, at 12:55 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Acee and Gunter (AD)*, > > *Gunter - As the AD, please review and approve of the following updates: > - Section 1: removed text > - Section 3 (within the YANG module): removed text > - Section 6.1: removed the normative reference entry for RFC 8342 > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html > > > Acee - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. > > 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) > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > > We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from each > author and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving this document forward in the > publication process. > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 1, 2025, at 3:55 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alana, >> I've attached my editorial comments including removal of the reference to >> RFC 8342. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> <rfc9902.orig.diff.html> >> >>> On Nov 29, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alana, >>> >>> I just have a couple editorial comments. See attached diff. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> <rfc9902.orig.diff.html> >>> >>>> 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]
