Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We note one instance of "variable-flag fields"; should this perhaps be updated as "variable-length Prefix Attribute Flags field" for clarity and consistency as shown below? Original: Such sub-TLV specifies the variable-flag fields to advertise additional attributes associated with OSPF prefixes. Perhaps: The sub-TLV specifies the variable-length Prefix Attribute Flags field to advertise additional attributes associated with OSPF prefixes. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] The following text points to non-existent sections. [RFC3630] does not contain Section 6.3, and [RFC8362] does not contain Section 2.3.2. Was "Section 2.3.2 of [RFC3630] and Section 6.3 of [RFC8362]" perhaps intended as shown below? Current: An implementation that does not recognize the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV would ignore the sub-TLV as per normal TLV processing operations (refer to Section 6.3 of [RFC3630] and Section 2.3.2 of [RFC8362]). Perhaps: An implementation that does not recognize the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV would ignore the sub-TLV as per normal TLV processing operations (refer to Section 2.3.2 of [RFC3630] and Section 6.3 of [RFC8362]). --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA text below. In addition to responding to those questions, please review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any further updates are needed. a) We see the following note from IANA. Please confirm if the additional sentence has been added or if it still needs to be added. NOTE: The authors plan to upload an -08 that will include an additional sentence in the IANA Considerations section. b) Should the titles of the new registries created by this document be updated to use "Flags" rather than "Flag Field"? We ask because that seems to be the pattern with other registry titles within both of the registry groups (see links below). Also, the name of the field in Figure 1 of this document is "Prefix Attribute Flags". Should the titles of the registries be updated further to use "Prefix Attribute" rather than "Prefix Extended"? Or is this okay? If the titles are updated, we will ask IANA to update the registries accordingly. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ Current: OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flag Field OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flag Field Perhaps A: OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags or Perhaps B: OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) FYI - We see both of the following forms. We updated the document to reflect the second form (i.e., with capitalized "Flags") for consistency. flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV b) Please review the capitalization of "prefix attribute flags" and "Prefix Attribute Flags" in the text below. We believe this should be capitalized in the name of the TLV and the name of the field but lowercased in general text. However, we are not sure if the capitalized form in the following sentences is referring to the field. Are any updates needed? Original: Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes flags in octets. ... For example, the most significant bit in the fifth octet of an 8-octet Prefix Attribute Flags is referred to as bit 32. Perhaps (leave capitalized form and add "field" for clarity): Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute Flags field. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes flags in octets. ... For example, the most significant bit in the fifth octet of an 8-octet Prefix Attribute Flags field is referred to as bit 32. --> 6) <!-- [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. RFC Editor/rv/kc On May 22, 2025, at 3:57 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/22 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 * 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://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, 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9792 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9792 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07) Title : Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Author(s) : R. Chen, D. Zhao, P. Psenak, K. Talaulikar, L. Gong WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
