Helen and Stephane - Please review and approve ASAP. Thanks, Acee
> On Dec 2, 2025, at 7:17 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Yingzhen, Helen, Jeff, and Stephane, > > Please review and approve. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Dec 2, 2025, at 6:08 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]
