Authors, While we await the updates to the IANA registries, we have an additional question.
1) In Section 4.2.1, the following sentence was added: The entry in the "L2BM" field is “X”. Would you like to add more context here (option A)? Or would you like to remove this sentence and add the "L2BM” column to Table 2 to match the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs” registry (option B)? See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/>. Please let us know your preference. Original: The entry in the "L2BM" field is “X". Perhaps A: The entry in the "L2BM" field is “X” (i.e., this is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV). Perhaps B: | Value | Description | L2BM | Reference | +======+===============================+===========+ | 37 | OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags | X | RFC 9792 | Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On May 27, 2025, at 11:44 AM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > 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
