Hi Authors, > RFC9903 includes section 1.1, "Requirements Language", while 9902 doesn't > have this. Should this be removed? > " > 1.1. Requirements Language > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", > "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] > when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. > "
RFC-to-be 9903 uses terms listed in that Requirements Language paragraph; RFC-to-be 9902 included that paragraph but did not use any of those terms within the document so we removed that text from the document (see question #2 in the AUTH48 thread of that document). The Requirements Language section should remain in RFC-to-be 9903. > The title of section 2 in 9903 is "2. OSPF Segment Routing over MPLS YANG > Data Model Scope", while 9902 is "2. Design of the IS-IS MPLS Segment > Routing Module". How about we change 9903 to "Design of the YANG Module for > OSPF MPLS Segment Routing" and 9902 to "Design of the YANG Module for IS-IS > MPLS Segment Routing"? > > The section 3 title for 9902 should be "IS-IS Segment Routing over MPLS YANG > Module". Please remove the first "MPLS". The files have been updated per your request. We have also sent mail in the AUTH48 thread for RFC-to-be 9902 to note the updates made in that document. 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) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this) See the AUTH48 status of this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9903 We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from Yingzhen, Jeffrey, and Helen prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 2, 2025, at 11:03 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > RFC9903 includes section 1.1, "Requirements Language", while 9902 doesn't > have this. Should this be removed? > " > 1.1. Requirements Language > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", > "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] > when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. > " > > The title of section 2 in 9903 is "2. OSPF Segment Routing over MPLS YANG > Data Model Scope", while 9902 is "2. Design of the IS-IS MPLS Segment > Routing Module". How about we change 9903 to "Design of the YANG Module for > OSPF MPLS Segment Routing" and 9902 to "Design of the YANG Module for IS-IS > MPLS Segment Routing"? > > The section 3 title for 9902 should be "IS-IS Segment Routing over MPLS YANG > Module". Please remove the first "MPLS". > " > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 9:57 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): added text > - Section 6.2: removed informative reference entry for RFC 8342 > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-auth48diff.html > > > Acee - Thank you for your replies. We’ve updated the files accordingly. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > 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 3:53 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Alana, > > > > Removed RFC 8342 reference as well. Complete set of editorial diffs > > attached. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > <rfc9903.orig.diff.html> > > > >> On Nov 29, 2025, at 4:08 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alana, > >> > >> Here is my complete set of editorial comments in RFC diff format. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> <rfc9903.orig.diff.html> > >> > >>> On Nov 29, 2025, at 3:20 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Alana, > >>> > >>>> On Nov 28, 2025, at 5:28 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alana, > >>>> > >>>> I have the following editorial comments on the current version. None of > >>>> these suggested changes should require AD approval. > >>>> > >>>> Note that I'm keeping my former LabN affiliation in the draft since I > >>>> did much of the work while working there. > >>>> > >>>> I have one question, does the YANG model itself need to have the first > >>>> instance of non-well-known acronyms expanded > >>>> on the first usage? If so, there are some that need to be expanded > >>>> (e.g., SRMS, IP-FRR, and RLFA). > >>> > >>> SRMS seems to be the only one needed. Please add the first-use expansion > >>> to the YANG model as well. > >>> > >>> *** 694,703 **** > >>> > >>> grouping srms-preference-tlv { > >>> description > >>> ! "The SRMS Preference TLV is used to advertise a preference > >>> ! associated with the node that acts as an SRMS. SRMS > >>> ! advertisements with a higher preference value are preferred > >>> ! over those with a lower preference value."; > >>> reference > >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 3.4"; > >>> container srms-preference-tlv { > >>> --- 692,702 ---- > >>> > >>> grouping srms-preference-tlv { > >>> description > >>> ! "The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is > >>> ! used to advertise a preference associated with the node that > >>> ! acts as an SRMS. SRMS advertisements with a higher > >>> ! preference value are preferred over those with a lower > >>> ! preference value."; > >>> reference > >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 3.4"; > >>> container srms-preference-tlv { > >>> *************** > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Acee > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> For the first change, note that we have been removing this statement > >>>> from the abstract in other RFCs (e.g., RFC 9020). > >>>> > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 74,82 **** > >>>> MPLS data plane. The defined YANG data model is an augmentation to > >>>> the OSPF YANG data model [RFC9129]. > >>>> > >>>> - The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network > >>>> - Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. > >>>> - > >>>> 1.1. Requirements Language > >>>> > >>>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > >>>> --- 74,79 ---- > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 105,111 **** > >>>> > >>>> The "ietf-ospf-sr-mpls" module defines both the data nodes to > >>>> configure OSPF Segment Routing MPLS extensions and the additions to > >>>> ! the OSPF Link State Advertisements (LSAs) necessary to support > >>>> Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). The OSPF configuration > >>>> includes: > >>>> > >>>> --- 102,108 ---- > >>>> > >>>> The "ietf-ospf-sr-mpls" module defines both the data nodes to > >>>> configure OSPF Segment Routing MPLS extensions and the additions to > >>>> ! OSPF Link State Advertisements (LSAs) necessary to support > >>>> Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). The OSPF configuration > >>>> includes: > >>>> > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 348,354 **** > >>>> base extended-prefix-range-flag; > >>>> description > >>>> "Inter-Area flag. Note that this is only applicable to OSPFv2 > >>>> ! since OSPFv3 advertises separate Inter-Area extended-LSA."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; > >>>> } > >>>> --- 345,351 ---- > >>>> base extended-prefix-range-flag; > >>>> description > >>>> "Inter-Area flag. Note that this is only applicable to OSPFv2 > >>>> ! since OSPFv3 advertises separate Inter-Area extended-LSAs."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; > >>>> } > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 500,506 **** > >>>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; > >>>> container extended-prefix-range-tlvs { > >>>> description > >>>> ! "List of range of prefixes."; > >>>> list extended-prefix-range-tlv { > >>>> description > >>>> "Range of prefixes."; > >>>> --- 497,503 ---- > >>>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; > >>>> container extended-prefix-range-tlvs { > >>>> description > >>>> ! "List of prefix ranges."; > >>>> list extended-prefix-range-tlv { > >>>> description > >>>> "Range of prefixes."; > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 662,668 **** > >>>> leaf range-size { > >>>> type rt-types:uint24; > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SID range."; > >>>> } > >>>> uses sid-tlv-encoding; > >>>> } > >>>> --- 659,666 ---- > >>>> leaf range-size { > >>>> type rt-types:uint24; > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SID range. The return of a zero value would indicate > >>>> ! an error."; > >>>> } > >>>> uses sid-tlv-encoding; > >>>> } > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 869,875 **** > >>>> "This augments the OSPF protocol configuration with Segment > >>>> Routing over the MPLS data plane. The following semantic > >>>> validation is to be performed for the configuration data: > >>>> ! - Assure the binding policies prefixes do not overlap."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 9020: YANG Data Model for Segment Routing"; > >>>> uses sr-mpls:sr-control-plane; > >>>> --- 868,875 ---- > >>>> "This augments the OSPF protocol configuration with Segment > >>>> Routing over the MPLS data plane. The following semantic > >>>> validation is to be performed for the configuration data: > >>>> ! - Assure prefixes specified in binding policies do not > >>>> ! overlap."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 9020: YANG Data Model for Segment Routing"; > >>>> uses sr-mpls:sr-control-plane; > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 934,940 **** > >>>> configuration."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "This augments LAN interface adj-sid with neighbor-id."; > >>>> leaf neighbor-id { > >>>> type inet:ip-address; > >>>> mandatory true; > >>>> --- 934,941 ---- > >>>> configuration."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "This augments multi-access interface adj-sids with a > >>>> ! neighbor-id."; > >>>> leaf neighbor-id { > >>>> type inet:ip-address; > >>>> mandatory true; > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 1072,1078 **** > >>>> leaf protection-requested { > >>>> type boolean; > >>>> description > >>>> ! "Describe if the Adj-SID is protected."; > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> --- 1073,1079 ---- > >>>> leaf protection-requested { > >>>> type boolean; > >>>> description > >>>> ! "Indicate if the Adj-SID is protected."; > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 1414,1420 **** > >>>> "This augmentation is only valid for OSPFv3."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SR Prefix-SID Sub-TLV in OSPFv3 Link-Scoped Intra-Area-Prefix > >>>> TLV for OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSAs."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 6"; > >>>> --- 1415,1421 ---- > >>>> "This augmentation is only valid for OSPFv3."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SR Prefix-SID Sub-TLV in OSPFv3 Intra-Area-Prefix > >>>> TLV for OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSAs."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 6"; > >>>> *************** > >>>> *** 1480,1486 **** > >>>> E-Router LSAs."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SR Sub-TLVs in OSPFv3 link-tlv for OSPFv3 E-Router LSAs."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 7"; > >>>> uses ospfv3-adj-sid-sub-tlvs; > >>>> --- 1481,1488 ---- > >>>> E-Router LSAs."; > >>>> } > >>>> description > >>>> ! "SR Sub-TLVs in OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV for OSPFv3 E-Router > >>>> ! LSAs."; > >>>> reference > >>>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 7"; > >>>> uses ospfv3-adj-sid-sub-tlvs; > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Acee > >>>> > >>>>> 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]
