Hi Xufeng and Sandy, Thank you both for the updates! We will make note of the situation and wait to hear back from you.
Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 16, 2025, at 8:10 PM, <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> > <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > > Hi Jeffrey, Xufeng, Madison and Shaowen, > I sent a message to Shaowen before and he is waiting for the company's > approval. Seems like it also take a long time for his company to approve. > So maybe we can wait a little longer. > Best regards, > Sandy > > > Original > From: XufengLiu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; > Cc: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>;Bruno Rijsman > <brunorijs...@gmail.com>;魏月华00019655;张征00007940;mashao...@gmail.com > <mashao...@gmail.com>;RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;rift-...@ietf.org > <rift-...@ietf.org>;rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>;Jordan Head > <jh...@juniper.net>;James Guichard > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>;auth48archive@rfc-ed > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > Date: 2025年02月16日 22:57 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 <draft-ietf-rift-yang-17> for your > reviewHi Jeffrey, Sandy, and Madison, > > Thanks for all the suggestions. My issue is mostly the timing and the slow > process on my side. If we have some more time, I may be able to do any of > these. At this moment, I still don't have the result. To unblock the > publication immediately, the safest way is simply to remove. As Madison > mentioned, if we are still waiting for Shaowen, I may have more time. I'll > give the update. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> > wrote: > Hi Xufeng, > > Is it that your current employer does not want an affiliation with this (or > any) IETF documents? > One solution could be that you're listed as an individual co-author (no > company affiliation). > > Jeffrey > > > Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:46 PM > To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>; Bruno Rijsman > <brunorijs...@gmail.com>; wei.yue...@zte.com.cn; ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn > <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>; mashao...@gmail.com > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; rift-...@ietf.org; > rift-cha...@ietf.org; Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net>; James Guichard > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 <draft-ietf-rift-yang-17> for your review > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Xufeng, > > Thank you for informing us of the situation. If removing your name as an > author is needed, would you like to be listed as a contributor (it would mean > adding a Contributors section) or mentioned in the Acknowledgements section? > > Please note that we are currently waiting on approval from Shaowen Ma as > well. We can check in with you to see how the process is going once we hear > from Shaowen. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > Sorry for the delay. I recently changed my employment, and the new employer > > has different policies. I am still trying to go through the process, but it > > is slow. To unblock the publication process, I'd like to remove myself from > > the author list. Sorry for the inconvenience. > > > > Thanks, > > - Xufeng > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:29 AM Madison Church > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Shaowen and Xufeng, > > > > This is a reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this > > document’s readiness for publication. > > > > Please review the AUTH48 status page > > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vLI3PIEg$ > > ) for further information and the previous messages in this thread. > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > On Jan 21, 2025, at 11:44 AM, Madison Church > > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Yuehua and Bruno, > > > > > > Thank you both for your replies. We have noted your approval and > > > incorporated our edits into the updated files below per Bruno’s guidance. > > > In addition to our updates, note that we also added <em> tags to > > > italicize term "ThreeWay" for consistency with RFCs 9692 and 9696. > > > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sG1irukA$ > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vX_l0l4g$ > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5tGe1X-Ng$ > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97 > > > 19.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mV > > > Z6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5shGew8YA$ > > > > > > The updated diffs have been posted here: > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vJjrFaUQ$ > > > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sX8aD9tA$ > > > (side by side) > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u_hrHeog$ > > > (AUTH48 changes only) > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97 > > > 19-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vp > > > ma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5ulV7CH4g$ (side > > > by side) > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc971 > > > 9__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5 > > > c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u8aKH7yQ$ > > > > > > Once we receive approvals from Shaowen and Xufeng, we will move this > > > document forward in the publication process. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:04 PM, Bruno Rijsman <brunorijs...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear RFC editors, > > >> > > >> Thank you very much for your careful review and final edits. > > >> > > >> I have carefully reviewed all the changes in the diff, and I agree with > > >> them. > > >> > > >> I also agree with your suggested changes to fix the comments in items #1 > > >> through #11 below, and I have read the style guide mentioned in #12. > > >> > > >> I approve this RFC for publication. > > >> > > >> Also my sincere thanks to the co-authors for their work on this document. > > >> > > >> — Bruno Rijsman > > >> > > >>> On Jan 16, 2025, at 3:14 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Authors, > > >>> > > >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > > >>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > >>> > > >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the abbreviated title (which > > >>> appears in the running header of the PDF) as follows. Please let us > > >>> know if you prefer otherwise. > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> RIFT YANG Model > > >>> > > >>> Current: > > >>> RIFT YANG Data Model > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] The Terminology section (Section 3.1) states that > > >>> terms and their definitions are copied from RFC 9692. However, we > > >>> note that definitions in this section contain a mix of sentences > > >>> directly from RFC 9692, paraphrased sentences from RFC 9692, as > > >>> well as mirrored definitions missing words throughout. If there > > >>> are no objections, we will revise the Terminology section in this > > >>> document to accurately reflect the definitions that appear in RFC 9692. > > >>> Please let us know any concerns. > > >>> > > >>> For example: > > >>> > > >>> "TIE" in RFC 9692 (Original): > > >>> This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element". TIEs are > > >>> exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such > > >>> as links and address prefixes. A TIE has always a direction and a > > >>> type. North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when > > >>> dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs > > >>> (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs > > >>> have different types such as node and prefix TIEs. > > >>> > > >>> "TIE" in this document (Original): > > >>> "Topology Information Element" are exchanged between RIFT nodes to > > >>> describe parts of a network such as links and address prefixes. A > > >>> TIE has always a direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes > > >>> abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when dealing with TIEs in the > > >>> northbound representation and South-TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as > > >>> S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs have different types such > > >>> as node and prefix TIEs. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that the following paragraph appears in > > >>> Sections 2.1 and 2.3. To avoid repetition, may we remove the > > >>> duplicate text from one section or the other? > > >>> > > >>> Original (Sections 2.1 and 2.3): > > >>> The RIFT YANG module augments the > > >>> /routing/control-plane-protocols/ control-plane-protocol path > > >>> defined in the ietf-routing module. This model augments the > > >>> routing module to add RIFT as a control plane protocol. It then > > >>> offers the ability to create a list of instances, which it does by > > >>> declaring 'list rift'. Multiple instances of the protocol are > > >>> supported by the module by giving each instance a unique name. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we corrected 'sourth' to 'south' (3 instances). > > >>> > > >>> From the original: > > >>> 465: | | +-ro total-num-routes-sourth? > > >>> 2418: leaf total-num-routes-sourth { > > >>> 2422: "The total number of sourth routes."; > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.3.9 of RFC 9692 is titled > > >>> "Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction". May we rephrase as follows? > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocol, such as BFD > > >>> [RFC5881], flooding-reducing section 6.3.9 [I-D.ietf-rift-rift]. > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps: > > >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocols, such as BFD > > >>> [RFC5881], with flooding reduction (Section 6.3.9 of [RFC9692]). > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 6) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for clarity? > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor's layer error should be notified. > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps: > > >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor layer errors should be notified. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 7) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and > > >>> the YANG Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred. > > >>> We have updated the title of Section 3 accordingly. Please review > > >>> usage of "YANG model" within this document. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the YANG module, please clarify "system id using > > >>> pattern" > > >>> in the description of system-id. (In text as "System ID" to match > > >>> RFC-to-be 9692.) > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> description > > >>> "This type defines RIFT system id using pattern, > > >>> the system id looks like: 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10"; > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps: > > >>> description > > >>> "This type defines the pattern for RIFT System IDs. > > >>> An example of a System ID is 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10."; > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please note that the YANG module has been updated > > >>> per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 10) <!--[rfced] Section 4. The text has been updated to exactly > > >>> match the template for YANG module security considerations > > >>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v8aiXi-w$ > > >>> ). Please review. > > >>> If additional changes are needed, please let us know. > > >>> Specifically, the following text was updated. > > >>> > > >>> Original (paragraph 3): > > >>> Writable data node represent configuration of each instance, node, > > >>> interface, etc. These correspond to the following schema node: > > >>> > > >>> Current: > > >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ > > >>> vulnerability: > > >>> > > >>> However, should it be updated to singular because one item is listed? > > >>> Perhaps: > > >>> This is the schema node and its sensitivity/vulnerability: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Original (paragraph 11): > > >>> Specifically, the > > >>> following operations have particular sensitivities/ vulnerabilities: > > >>> > > >>> Current: > > >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ > > >>> vulnerability: > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence; the original does not > > >>> parse. > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for the > > >>> neighbor connection broken, will lead to the permanent connection > > >>> broken. > > >>> > > >>> Perhaps: > > >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for the > > >>> broken neighbor connection, will break the connection permanently. > > >>> --> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > > >>> the online Style Guide > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide > > >>> /part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZ > > >>> dGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vIPOf > > >>> lCg$ > 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. > > >>> > > >>> RFC Editor/mc/ar > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Jan 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > >>> > > >>> *****IMPORTANT***** > > >>> > > >>> Updated 2025/01/15 > > >>> > > >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5uo5Yt7oA$ > > >>> ). > > >>> > > >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u3x1YHMw$ > > >>> ). > > >>> > > >>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v5AixMsQ$ > > >>> >. > > >>> > > >>> * 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 > > >>> > > >>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > >>> > > >>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > > >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > >>> list: > > >>> > > >>> * More info: > > >>> > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ > > >>> ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QM > > >>> aMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMw > > >>> l9gFgmP5t2stZVIQ$ > > >>> > > >>> * The archive itself: > > >>> > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/brow > > >>> se/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma > > >>> 7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sa9xeU7A$ > > >>> > > >>> * 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, > > >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5shGew8YA$ > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71 > > >>> YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5tGe1X-Ng$ > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vX_l0l4g$ > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sG1irukA$ > > >>> > > >>> Diff file of the text: > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-K > > >>> iRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vJjrFaUQ$ > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma > > >>> 7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sX8aD9tA$ (side > > >>> by side) > > >>> > > >>> Diff of the XML: > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > >>> 9719-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpm > > >>> a7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v9WZhdQA$ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Tracking progress > > >>> ----------------- > > >>> > > >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9 > > >>> 719__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ > > >>> 6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u8aKH7yQ$ > > >>> > > >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > > >>> > > >>> Thank you for your cooperation, > > >>> > > >>> RFC Editor > > >>> > > >>> -------------------------------------- > > >>> RFC9719 (draft-ietf-rift-yang-17) > > >>> > > >>> Title : YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) > > >>> Author(s) : Z. Zhang, Y. Wei, S. Ma, X. Liu, B. Rijsman > > >>> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura > > >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
