I approve the publication. Cheers
-j From: Peter Psenak <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 at 9:49 AM To: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>, Jakub Horn (jakuhorn) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9917 <draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-12> for your review Hi Alanna, the changes looks good. I approve the publication. thanks, Peter On 20/01/2026 20:53, Alanna Paloma wrote: > 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]
