Hi Peter, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9917 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 19, 2026, at 3:09 AM, Peter Psenak > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alann, Alice, > > please see inline (##PP): > > On 16/01/2026 19:43, [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] Because this document updates RFC 9350, please >> review the errata reported for RFC 9350 >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9350) >> and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them >> are relevant to the content of this document. >> --> > ##PP > Ack on that >> >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have added RFC 9843 to the list of updated documents >> in the header, based on the statement in the abstract. >> --> > ##PP > ok >> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >> >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] Because of the abstract's length, we suggest moving some >> of its content, particularly the second paragraph, to the Introduction. >> As noted in Section 4.3 of RFC 7322: >> Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and >> comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire >> document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general >> overview of the function of the document.... >> A satisfactory Abstract can often be >> constructed in part from material within the Introduction section, >> but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps >> broader in scope than the Introduction. >> >> Please let us know how the text may be updated. >> --> > ##PP > Just remove the second paragraph of the Abstract section. No need to move it > to the Introduction section, it would become redundant there. >> >> >> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI, in addition to expanding "SPF", the word "path" was >> removed >> here to match usage of "SPF computation" in this document and other RFCs. >> Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. >> >> Original: the SPF path computation >> Current: the Shortest Path First (SPF) computation >> --> > ##PP > Ack > -- > Section 4, 3rd paragraph, expansion of the LSP to Label Switched Path (LSP) > is incorrect, it should be Link State Protocol Data Unit > > >> >> 6) <!--[rfced] To avoid the repetition of "Usage" and "use" to improve >> readability, may we update "Usage" to "Application"? >> >> Original: >> Usage of such throttling mechanism can also be used to avoid >> frequent changes in the setting of the Extended Administrative Group >> on a link to affect the stability of the receivers. >> >> Perhaps: >> Application of such throttling mechanism can also be used to avoid >> frequent changes in the setting of the Extended Administrative Group >> on a link to affect the stability of the receivers. >> --> > ##PP > Ack >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] As this text is repeated in Table 1, may we remove it from >> Section 11 to avoid redundancy? >> >> Original: >> Check if any exclude reverse Admin Group rule is part of the Flex- >> Algorithm definition. If such exclude rule exists, check if any >> Admin Group that is part of the exclude rule is also set on the >> link in the reverse direction. If such Admin Group is set on the >> link in the reverse direction, the link MUST be pruned from the >> computation. >> >> Check if any include-any reverse Admin Group rule is part of the >> Flex-Algorithm definition. If such include-any rule exists, check >> if any Admin Group that is part of the include-any rule is also >> set on the link in the reverse direction. If no such Admin Group >> is set on the link in the reverse direction, the link MUST be >> pruned from the computation. >> >> Check if any include-all reverse Admin Group rule is part of the >> Flex-Algorithm definition. If such include-all rule exists, check >> if all Admin Groups that are part of the include-all rule are also >> set on the link in the reverse direction. If all such Admin >> Groups are not set on the link in the reverse direction, the link >> MUST be pruned from the computation. >> --> > ##PP > I would keep it to make it clear what is being added by this document. >> >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] May the content of Section 12 be moved under Section 13.3 or >> become a subsection? Rationale: Section 12 provides guidance to designated >> experts when evaluating new registrations in the registry described in >> Section 13.3. >> >> Original: >> 12. IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry >> 13. IANA Considerations >> 13.1. Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV >> 13.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV Registry >> 13.3. IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry >> >> Perhaps: >> 12. IANA Considerations >> 12.1. Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV >> 12.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV Registry >> 12.3. IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry >> 12.3.1. Guidance for Designated Experts >> >> [where 12.3.1 contains the original section 12] >> >> If so, the two mentions of Section 12 would be updated accordingly: >> >> Original: Section 12 provides guidance for designated experts. >> Perhaps: Section 12.3.1 provides guidance for designated experts. >> >> Original: (refer to Section 12) >> Perhaps: (refer to Section 12.3.1) >> --> > ##PP > I'm fine with the above. >> >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] For the sake of the reader, would you like to add a sentence >> to explain "FAEMB" and "FAEMB", which are used in the descriptions within >> Table 1? It could appear directly before table, perhaps: >> >> In Table 1, "FAEMB" means "Flex-Algorithm Exclude Minimum Bandwidth", >> and "FAEMD" means "Flex-Algorithm Exclude Maximum Delay". >> --> > ##PP > I'm ok with it, although the reference to RFC9843 that expands FAEMB/FAEMD > seems sufficient. > >> >> 10) <!--[rfced] The Acknowledgments section is currently populated with >> "TBD". >> Please let us know if/what text should be added here. >> --> > ##PP > please remove it. >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] 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. >> >> Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) >> Link State Advertisement (LSA) >> Label Switched Path (LSP) > ##PP > Please see my previous comment on the expansion of the LSP. > >> Shortest Path First (SPF) >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [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. >> --> >> > thanks, > Peter >> >> Thank you. >> >> Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> On Jan 16, 2026, at 10:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2026/01/16 >> >> 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/rfc9917.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9917-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9917 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9917 (draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-12) >> >> Title : IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse Affinity Constraint >> Author(s) : P. Psenak, J. Horn, A. Dhamija >> 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]
