Hi, I have reviewed the document and approve for publication.
Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> Sent: 21 October 2025 04:54 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; Antoni Przygienda <[email protected]>; Parag Kaneriya <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [IANA #1433072] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9885 <draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19> for your review [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Les, My sincere apologies for the delayed response. Per IANA’s reply, we did not include the URLs to individual registries. Along the lines of your request, we did tell the reader how to find the relevant registry and added intro text to each section to highlight the registry name. Please review and let us know if this is acceptable or if you prefer that the steps be included as a numbered list. Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q9sYqwVTw$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8JI_6pEA$ (side by side) The current files are available here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8anMsGmg$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8nub2bmA$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-tR2dDkA$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-TpTVqdg$ AUTH48 diffs: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-qQ31VAg$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8DQUluPA$ (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8RRXA6kQ$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8_rbUbJQ$ (side by side) Thank you. Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Oct 8, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Sandy, Les, > > Please see [ST] inline. > > On Mon Oct 06 19:33:02 2025, [email protected] wrote: >> Hi Les, IANA, >> >> Thank you for your quick reply. Please see our notes below (resolved >> items have been snipped). >> >> IANA, please see items 12, 13, and 14. >> >> The current files are available at the URLs below. Please refer to >> these files to see the examples we mention in item 13. >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwv >> m0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8anMsGmg$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwv >> m0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8nub2bmA$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwv >> m0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-tR2dDkA$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSw >> vm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-TpTVqdg$ >> >> Diffs of the most recently updates only: >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uy >> aq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q9sYqwVTw$ >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P >> 0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8JI_6pEA$ (side by >> side) >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0 >> uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-qQ31VAg$ >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku >> 1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8DQUluPA$ (side by >> side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Q >> izvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8RRXA6kQ$ >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc988 >> 5-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uya >> q6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8_rbUbJQ$ (side by >> side) >> >>> On Oct 2, 2025, at 5:01 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Presumably, the mechanism defined in this >>>>>> document would not be needed if the mechanims defined by RFC 7356 >>>>>> were backwards compatible (i.e., the existence of RFC 7356 does >>>>>> not resolve the problem). >>>>>> For clarity, we suggest the update below. Please review and >>>>>> clarify as needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> [RFC7356] has defined a 16-bit length field for TLVs in flooding >>>>>> scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), in which case the problem >>>>>> addressed by this document would not exist. However, >>>>>> introduction of these new PDU types is not backwards compatible. >>>>>> Therefore, there is a need to address how to expand the >>>>>> information advertised in existing PDUs that use 8-bit length >>>>>> TLVs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>> [RFC7356] has defined a 16-bit length field for TLVs in flooding >>>>>> scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), but it is not backwards >>>>>> compatible. Therefore, there remains a need to address how to >>>>>> expand the information advertised in PDUs that use 8-bit TLVs. >>>>>> --> >>>>> [LES:] I prefer the existing text in the document. In theory, MP- >>>>> TLV is >>>> applicable to TLVs with 16 bit length, though the likelihood this >>>> would ever be needed is close to zero. >>>>> Still, I see no need to preclude it. >>>> >>>> We have not made any updates, but we find the first sentence >>>> especially confusing. The “in which” statement does not quite fit >>>> with the earlier part of the sentence. Perhaps the “in which” part >>>> of the sentence can be removed? >>>> >>>> In addition, does "8-bit TLVs" mean "8-bit Length fields"? >>>> >>> [LES:] I think this discussion has highlighted that the current text >>> is not completely in sync with the intent of the document. Here is a >>> proposed rewording. >>> Also note that the document currently does NOT use the term "8-bit >>> TLVs" (your proposed changes introduced that). The document uses "8- >>> bit length TLVs" - but I have clarified that in the new proposal >>> below. >>> >>> " [RFC7356] has defined a 16-bit Length field for TLVs in flooding >>> scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), in which case the problem >>> addressed by this document would likely not be encountered. However, >>> introduction of these new PDU types is not backwards compatible. >>> Therefore, there is a need to address how to expand the information >>> advertised in existing PDUs that use TLVs with 8-bit length fields." >> >> We have updated the document as noted above. However, it is not >> clear what text “in which case” is referring to. A colleague >> provided the following possible update — would this retain the intended >> meaning? >> >> Perhaps: >> The addition of the 16-bit Length field for TLVs in flooding-scoped >> Protocol Data Units (PDUs) defined in [RFC7356] means that the >> problem addressed by this document would likely not be encountered. >> However, introduction of these new PDU types is not backwards compatible. >> Therefore, there is a need to address how to expand the information >> advertised in existing PDUs that use TLVs with 8-bit length fields. >> >> >> >>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether "implicit support" >>>>>> should be capitalized - that is, how should it appear in other >>>>>> documents that refer to this TLV? Note that we will ask IANA to >>>>>> update their registry as needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support >>>>>> --> >>>>> [LES:] I am fine either way - but capitalizing it seems like a >>>>> good choice. >>>> >>>> We capitalized “Implicit Support” and will ask IANA to update their >>>> registry. >> >> IANA, In the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV” >> registry >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tl >> v-codepoints/isis-tlv-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5H >> ku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_sGQ_oeg$ >> codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-242>, please capitalize >> “Implicit Support” in the description for value 30. > > [ST] Done: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv- > codepoints__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qiz > vSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8EoesvEw$ > >>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have removed the URLs from each of >>>>>> the subsections in Section 9.2. The URLs would need to be >>>>>> reduced to the URL for the main registry group per IANA guidance, >>>>>> which is already mentioned in Section 9.2. We did not include >>>>>> any introductory text for the tables because the registry names >>>>>> are part of the section titles and table titles. >>>>>> Please review and let us know if you prefer that introductory >>>>>> text be added. >>>>>> --> >>>>> [LES:] The URLs for the individual tables are taken from the list >>>>> of URLs at the >>>> beginning of >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-t >>>> lv-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwv >>>> m0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q98NTX3yQ$ >>>> codepoints/isis-tlv- >>>> codepoints.xhtml >>>>> They are useful in that they can be used to go directly to the >>>>> relevant "sub- >>>> registry". >>>>> I prefer to keep them. >>>>> If there is some IANA policy which makes this "illegal" - well OK. >>>>> But if not, >>>> please restore them. >>>> >>>> We removed the URLs per the IANA guidance on >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q9-MZ7toA$ >>>> >: >>>> >>>> • If the registry should be placed at an existing URL, it's helpful >>>> to cite that URL, but please use the "short" version that doesn't >>>> include a file extension (or a URI fragment). More on this below, >>>> in the "Future" section. In the >>>> meantime: >>>> • Yes: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8igIF7fg$ >>>> • No: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-pa >>>> rameters/bgp-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uy >>>> aq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_YAmQXwg$ >>>> parameters.xhtml >>>> • No, regrettably: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-__ >>>> ;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAm >>>> eFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-oncTNVQ$ >>>> parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-graceful-restart-flags >>>> >>> [LES:] So, we have a real problem here. Feel free to involve IANA in >>> the discussion. >>> With the URLs, it is straightforward to find the specific "sub- >>> registry" which s being modified. >>> Without the URLs, what is a reader to do? >>> >>> Take the example of 9.2.2. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse >>> Metric TLV >>> >>> How is the reader to find the specific sub-registry which is being >>> modified? >>> Try inserting "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV" into your >>> favorite search engine and see what you get - not very satisfactory. >>> The reader would somehow have to know: >>> >>> 1)Navigate to >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tl >>> v-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0 >>> gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q98NTX3yQ$ >>> codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml >>> 2)Search for " IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV" on the page >>> 3)Click on the link available there >>> >>> Not very reader friendly. >>> >>> I appreciate that you are trying to follow the "letter of the law" >>> as per the guidance referenced above - but the end result is not useful. >>> I have used the URLs which IANA itself assigned to the sub- >>> registries. If the format of the URLs is not "quotable" it seems to >>> me, it is IANA's problem to make them quotable. >>> >>> There is a real need to have usable references to the individual >>> registries which are being changed. >> >> IANA, please see the discussion above. How stable are the URLs for >> the individual registries within the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints” registry >> group? > > [ST] I checked with my team, and we should continue to point to > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8EoesvEw$ > , as you have been doing. In the future, the fragment URIs will no longer > point to the specific registry; instead, they will point only to the registry > group. Permanent URLs will be made available in the future, but this feature > is still under development. > >> In the current version, we have included a possible workaround to >> refer to the specific registry name with the URL for the registry >> group >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tl >> v-codepoints__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8EoesvEw$ >> > — see Section 9.2.1 for an example. If this is an acceptable solution, >> we could update the remaining subsections in a similar manner. >> >> >> >>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We removed "TLV" from these entries to match >>>>>> what >>>> appears >>>>>> in the IANA registry. >>>>>> >>>>>> 126 IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV N >>>>>> 127 IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV N >>>>>> --> >>>>> [LES:] That's fine. Note that I copied the text from the list at >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-t >>>> lv-codepoints/isis-tlv-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfU >>>> h5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_sGQ_oeg$ >>>> codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachabilit >>>> y >>>> - so IANA >>>> might consider updating that text as well. >>>> >>>> We will mention this to IANA. >>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126) >>>>> IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127) <end snip> >> >> IANA, note that we have removed TLV from the document to align with >> the Names in the “IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints” registry. However, >> the author pointed out that the following appear in the description >> for the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability” >> registry: >> >> IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126) >> IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127) >> >> Please consider whether an update is needed. > > [ST] Thank you for pointing this out. We've removed "TLV" from the > description. > > Thanks, > Sabrina > >> >> Thank you, >> Sandy Ginoza >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> The current files are available here: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qiz >>>> vSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8anMsGmg$ >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qiz >>>> vSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8nub2bmA$ >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qiz >>>> vSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-tR2dDkA$ >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qi >>>> zvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-TpTVqdg$ >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uy >>>> aq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8RRXA6kQ$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P >>>> 0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8_rbUbJQ$ (side by >>>> side) >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hk >>>> u1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-qQ31VAg$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9 >>>> 885-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh >>>> 5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8DQUluPA$ >>>> (side by >>>> side) >>>> >>>> Please let us know how you’d like to proceed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Sandy Ginoza >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 29, 2025, at 9:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>> >>>>>> Updated 2025/09/29 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8ioxeHzw$ >>>>>> ). >>>>>> >>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8f8Wxylg$ >>>>>> ). >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q96s6fDmQ$ >>>>>> >. >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> * [email protected] (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). >>>>>> >>>>>> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing >>>>>> list >>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> list: >>>>>> >>>>>> * More info: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg >>>>>> /ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59 >>>>>> RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-9oVA0u >>>>>> Q$ >>>>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >>>>>> >>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/bro >>>>>> wse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5H >>>>>> ku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_b1p28xA$ >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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, >>>>>> [email protected] 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq >>>>>> 6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8anMsGmg$ >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uya >>>>>> q6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-TpTVqdg$ >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq >>>>>> 6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q-tR2dDkA$ >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq >>>>>> 6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8nub2bmA$ >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1 >>>>>> P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8RRXA6kQ$ >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5H >>>>>> ku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q8_rbUbJQ$ >>>>>> (side by >>>>>> side) >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf >>>>>> c9885-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5 >>>>>> Hku1P0uyaq6QizvSwvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_bToRJZA$ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc >>>>>> 9885__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AtKcq7cMHWJ7RFGUuX6pUd59RfUh5Hku1P0uyaq6Qizv >>>>>> Swvm0gAmeFycFu1RLxVCPN_XbMeFcql4f2VF4q_wBEyi5A$ >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> RFC 9885 (draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19) >>>>>> >>>>>> Title : Multi-Part TLVs in IS-IS >>>>>> Author(s) : P. Kaneriya, T. Li, A. Przygienda, S. Hegde, L. >>>>>> Ginsberg >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu >>>>>> >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de >>>>>> Velde >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
