Hi Acee and Yingzhen, Thank you for your replies. Acee’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
Additionally, we have removed the first sentence of the repeated information in the YANG module to reflect the text in RFC-to-be 9903. 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) Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:02 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alana, > > I noticed in Section 3, the module description has the following duplicate > message: > " > This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9902 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9902); see the RFC itself > for full legal notices. > > This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9902; > see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; > " > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 9:56 AM 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]
