Hi Sabrina, Looks great!
Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Jul 30, 2025, at 6:24 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <iana-mat...@iana.org> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for catching this. The file has been updated: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-ospf-admin-tags.txt > > Thanks, > Sabrina > > On Wed Jul 30 21:07:49 2025, starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Hi IANA, >> >> Please make the following update to the "IETF XML Registry" at >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns/yang/ietf-ospf-admin- >> tags.txt. >> >> Minor update: add period after "namespace" >> >> Old: >> XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace >> >> New: >> XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/st >> >>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:50 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc- >>> editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Yingzhen, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 >>> status page for this document (http://www.rfc- >>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9825). >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/st >>> >>>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sarah, >>>> >>>> Thanks for making the changes. >>>> >>>> I approve the publication of this version. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Yingzhen >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:33 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hi Sarah, >>>> Thanks for the quick turnaround. It looks good to me. >>>> Acee >>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 3:25 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc- >>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Yingzhen and Acee, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for providing the updated yang tree module. I've updated >>>>> the files as you requested. >>>>> >>>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we >>>>> do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. >>>>> >>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.xml >>>>> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html (comprehensive >>>>> diff) >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>> changes only) >>>>> >>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to >>>>> view the most recent version. >>>>> >>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>>> >>>>>> I had made that change for some of the other lines in the tree but >>>>>> I guess I missed some lines since I did it manually. Let's use the >>>>>> non-wrapped version that Yingzhen generated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I believe we can also get rid of this note and reference: >>>>>> >>>>>> This document uses the graphical representation of data models per >>>>>> [RFC8340]. NOTE: '\' line wrapping is per [RFC8792]. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, >>>>>> "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and >>>>>> RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, >>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792>. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2025, at 2:41 PM, Yingzhen Qu >>>>>>> <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the late response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the YANG tree in section 7.1, instead of using "\" for line >>>>>>> wrapping, I regenerated the tree with line length equal to 69. >>>>>>> Please see attached and let me know what you think. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Yingzhen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 7:34 AM Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Yingzhen, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your approval prior to >>>>>>> moving forward in the publication process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html >>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html >>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to >>>>>>> view the most recent version. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 11:33 AM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Acee, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document >>>>>>>> accordingly and marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page >>>>>>>> for this document (see https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9825). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will await approval from Yingzhen prior to moving forward in >>>>>>>> the publication process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html >>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to >>>>>>>> view the most recent version. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 11:27 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I approve this version with the correction of one typo >>>>>>>>> (attached). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2025, at 9:03 AM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Acee, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking a second, careful look at the >>>>>>>>>> diff. I've made the "Sub-TLV" changes you requested and have >>>>>>>>>> no further questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We will await approvals from each you and Yingzhen prior to >>>>>>>>>> moving forward in the publication process. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please >>>>>>>>>> refresh): >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html >>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser >>>>>>>>>> to view the most recent version. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2025, at 3:13 AM, Acee Lindem >>>>>>>>>>> <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sarah, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You didn't apply my last changes correctly. "Sub-TLV" should >>>>>>>>>>> be capitalized when used as a specific sub-TLV, i.e., a >>>>>>>>>>> proper noun. See the attached diff. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>>>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>>>>>> <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Acee and AD*, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> AD* - please see question #7 below. We've included Acee's >>>>>>>>>>>> response and updated accordingly, but we still need official >>>>>>>>>>>> AD approval and/or edits. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that the first paragraph in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considerations section does not match what appears at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines>. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Acee: This is intended. There seems to be confusion here >>>>>>>>>>>>> that this document >>>>>>>>>>>>> is primarily to standardize the YANG module. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we have made some updates in this section to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect the boilerplate. Please review this section and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if any further updates are necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Acee: Ok. This is a moving target - I took the latest from >>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that Med also commented that the security protocols >>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced as examples >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be informational references. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> See Section 8 in https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825- >>>>>>>>>>>> auth48diff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Acee - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the >>>>>>>>>>>> document accordingly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that we did use the lowercase "sub-TLV" (instead >>>>>>>>>>>> of "Sub-TLV") to match recent past RFCs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> While we await AD approval, please review the document >>>>>>>>>>>> carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes >>>>>>>>>>>> once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >>>>>>>>>>>> further updates or with your approval of the document in its >>>>>>>>>>>> current form. We will await approvals from each author >>>>>>>>>>>> prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.txt >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825.html >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc0825.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please >>>>>>>>>>>> refresh): >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-diff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9825-auth48diff.html >>>>>>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your >>>>>>>>>>>> browser to view the most recent version. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9825 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2025, at 5:48 AM, Acee Lindem >>>>>>>>>>>>> <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi RFC Editor, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Refer to the attached RFC diff. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 17, 2025, at 5:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors and AD*, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also in the XML file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *AD, please see question #7 below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We note that most of the recently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> published RFCs containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for...", for example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optical Networks (WSONs) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider whether the title of this document should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be updated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tags >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Yang Data Model for Extensions to OSPF for Advertising >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prefix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tags >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. The YANG model augmentations are ancillary to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> additional function provided by the OSPF administrative >>>>>>>>>>>>> tags. As for you suggestion, note that it is "YANG" and >>>>>>>>>>>>> never "Yang". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that appear in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LSA" to "OSPFv2 Extended >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prefix Opaque LSA" to match RFC 7684. Please let us know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any objections. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added line breaks to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diagram as well as a note and reference to RFC 8792 for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the '\' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> line wrapping. Please review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like this - please format as specified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> attached diff. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - As the RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 keywords >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within the YANG module, we have removed the keywords >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boilerplate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph from the module. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Note that the YANG module has been updated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatting option of pyang. Please let us know of any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] *AD - We note that the first paragraph in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considerations section does not match what appears at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidelines>. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is intended. There seems to be confusion here that >>>>>>>>>>>>> this document >>>>>>>>>>>>> is primarily to standardize the YANG module. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, we have made some updates in this section to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflect the boilerplate. Please review this section and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if any further updates are necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. This is a moving target - I took the latest from draft- >>>>>>>>>>>>> ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that Med also commented that the security protocols >>>>>>>>>>>>> referenced as examples >>>>>>>>>>>>> should be informational references. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology appears to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used interchangeably. Please review these occurrences >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and let us know >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if/how they may be made consistent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tag vs. admin tag vs. administrative tag >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. Administrative Tag TLV vs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> administrative tag TLV >>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA vs. E-Intra-Area-Prefix LSA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Extended Prefix TLV vs. extended prefix TLV >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prefix Administrative Tag sub-TLV vs. prefix admin tag >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-TLV >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok - I've updated all these for consistency. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> following abbreviations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> review each >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't find any violations either. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>>>>>>>> <rfc9825-orig.diff.html> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <ietf-ospf-admin-tags.tree> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
