Dear Karen， Thank you for the updates. Current form looks good to me and I agree we can proceed with the publication process. Best Regards, Liyan ----邮件原文----发件人：Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org>收件人："chen.ran" <chen....@zte.com.cn>,"zhao.detao" <zhao.de...@zte.com.cn>,ppsenak <ppse...@cisco.com>,gongliyan <gongli...@chinamobile.com>,"ketant.ietf" <ketant.i...@gmail.com>抄 送: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>,lsr-ads <lsr-...@ietf.org>,lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>,Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>,"Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)" <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>,RFC Editor via auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>发送时间：2025-05-24 03:54:46主题：Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792<draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> for your reviewDear Ran,Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated our files accordingly. Please review the changes and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the document in its current form. Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward with the publication process.—FILES— The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.xmlThe updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.htmlThese diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)These diff files show all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-rfcdiff.html (side by side)Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9792Best regards,RFC Editor/kc> On May 23, 2025, at 2:30 AM, ranchen via auth48archive wrote:> > Hi RFC Editor, > > > > Sorry, a typo correction,please see point 5) (b)> > > > Many thanks!> > Ran> > > > Original> From: 陈然00080434> To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > Cc: 赵德涛10132546ppse...@cisco.com ketant.i...@gmail.com gongli...@chinamobile.com rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org lsr-...@ietf.org lsr-cha...@ietf.org acee.i...@gmail.com gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Date: 2025年05月23日 17:13> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 for your review> Hi RFC Editor, > > Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline. > > > > > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > To: 陈然00080434赵德涛10132546ppse...@cisco.com ketant.i...@gmail.com gongli...@chinamobile.com > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org lsr-...@ietf.org lsr-cha...@ietf.org acee.i...@gmail.com gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Date: 2025年05月23日 07:00> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 for your review> Authors,> > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.> > 1) > I suggest：Prefix attributes；IGP> > > > 2) Yes, that change looks good. > > > 3) You are correct. The intended references were mistakenly reversed. > > > 4) Yes, it still need to be added. Please add: The entry in the "L2BM" field is "X" at the > > bottom of section 5.2.1. Please see blow:> > > 5.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry This document requests IANA to make permanent the early allocation of the following codepoint for the "OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags" in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs" registry: Value Description Reference -------- ---------------------------------- -------------- 37 OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags RFC to be> The entry in the "L2BM" field is "X".> > > > 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> --> We agree with the suggestion and prefer to rename the registries as follows for > > clarity and consistency with the field name used in the document:> > • OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags> > • OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags> > Please proceed to ask IANA to update the registry titles accordingly. Many thanks!> > > 5) Yes, that change looks good. > > > > 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.> --> Yes, I agree. > > There is one more place that needs to be updated.> > Original:> Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix> Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes> flags in octets.> > New:> > Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix> Attribute Flags field. This indicates the length of the Prefix > Attributes Flags field in octets.> > Change to:> > Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix> Attribute Flags field. This indicates the length of the Prefix > Attribute Flags field in octets.> > > 6) > After checking I believe the current text is OK in this aspect.> > Many thanks,> > Ran> > > > 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:> > > > 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 > and are set correctly. See details at > .> > * 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
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
