Hi Alanna, Thanks for making the changes. I approve the document for publication.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 8:23 AM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Thank you for your approval. It’s been noted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Dec 3, 2025, at 12:15 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > Approved, thanks! > > Jeff > > > >> On Dec 3, 2025, at 09:38, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Authors, > >> > >> Yingzhen sent additional updates for this document’s section titles in > the AUTH48 thread for RFC-to-be 9903. We have updated the files accordingly. > >> > >>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 11:03 AM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> 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 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) > >> > >> See the AUTH48 status of this document here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > >> > >> We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals > from Stephane, Yingzhen, Helen, and Jeff prior to moving this document > forward in the publication process. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Alanna Paloma > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 8:48 AM, Alanna Paloma < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Gunter, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your approvals. They have been noted on the AUTH48 > status page: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Alanna Paloma > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 3:08 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alanna, > >>>> > >>>> Pleas see inline: GV> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2025 6:55 PM > >>>> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) < > [email protected]> > >>>> Cc: Helen Chen <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> < > [email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Jeff > Tantsura <[email protected]>; Editor RFC <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; auth48archive > <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: [AD] 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 Acee and Gunter (AD)*, > >>>> > >>>> *Gunter - As the AD, please review and approve of the following > updates: > >>>> - Section 1: removed text > >>>> GV> Approved > >>>> > >>>> - Section 3 (within the YANG module): removed text > >>>> GV> > >>>> > >>>> - Section 6.1: removed the normative reference entry for RFC 8342 > >>>> GV> Approved. The text referencing this was removed from the body > during the rfc editing process. > >>>> > >>>> Be well, > >>>> G/ > >>>> > >>>> 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]
