Dear IANA, Please make the following updates to match the edited document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-diff.html>.
1) At https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/>, please update the title of the registry: Old: OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flag Field New: OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags 2) At https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters>, please update the title of the registry: OLD: OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flag Field NEW: OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Thank you in advance! RFC Editor/kc > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792 > <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> for your review > Date: May 27, 2025 at 11:44:57 AM PDT > To: chen....@zte.com.cn, ketant.i...@gmail.com, gongli...@chinamobile.com, > ppse...@cisco.com, zhao.de...@zte.com.cn > Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, lsr-...@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> > > 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
