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
