Dear Ran, Detao, Ketan, Liyan, and Peter, Thank you for your replies. We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9792).
We will now ask IANA to update their registries to match the edited document. We will inform you once the updates are complete. Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On May 25, 2025, at 4:03 AM, <chen....@zte.com.cn> <chen....@zte.com.cn> > wrote: > > Dear Karen, > > Appreciate the work put into this document. I have reviewed all the changes, > and they look good to me. I approve its publication as RFC. > > > > Many thanks, > > Ran > > > > Original > From: KarenMoore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > To: 陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;ppse...@cisco.com > <ppse...@cisco.com>;gongli...@chinamobile.com > <gongli...@chinamobile.com>;ketant.i...@gmail.com <ketant.i...@gmail.com>; > Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;lsr-...@ietf.org > <lsr-...@ietf.org>;lsr-cha...@ietf.org <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>; > Date: 2025年05月24日 03:55 > Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 > <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> for your review > Dear 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.xml > > The 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.html > > These 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/rfc9792 > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/kc > > > > On May 23, 2025, at 2:30 AM, ranchen via auth48archive > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> 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 <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; > > Cc: 赵德涛10132546;ppse...@cisco.com <ppse...@cisco.com>;ketant.i...@gmail.com > > <ketant.i...@gmail.com>;gongli...@chinamobile.com > > <gongli...@chinamobile.com>;rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org > > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;lsr-...@ietf.org > > <lsr-...@ietf.org>;lsr-cha...@ietf.org > > <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;acee.i...@gmail.com > > <acee.i...@gmail.com>;gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com > > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > > Date: 2025年05月23日 17:13 > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 > > <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> for your review > > Hi RFC Editor, > > > > Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > To: 陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;ppse...@cisco.com > > <ppse...@cisco.com>;ketant.i...@gmail.com > > <ketant.i...@gmail.com>;gongli...@chinamobile.com > > <gongli...@chinamobile.com>; > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;lsr-...@ietf.org > > <lsr-...@ietf.org>;lsr-cha...@ietf.org > > <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;acee.i...@gmail.com > > <acee.i...@gmail.com>;gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com > > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > > Date: 2025年05月23日 07:00 > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 > > <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> 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) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > I suggest：Prefix attributes；IGP > > > > > > > > 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. > > -->Yes, that change looks good. > > > > > > 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]). > > -->You are correct. The intended references were mistakenly reversed. > > > > > > 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. > > -->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) <!-- [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 > > > > --> 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) <!-- [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. > > --> > > 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: > > > > <!-- [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 > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
