Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] We note that BCP 14 key words are not used in this document. Therefore, we have removed the keywords paragraph in Section 1.1 and in the YANG module. We have also removed the references to RFCs 2119 and 8174. --> 3) <!--[rfced] This text in Section 2 reflects text in Section 1. As it is repeating information, may we remove this text from Section 2? Original (Section 1): This document defines a device YANG data model [RFC7950] that can be used to manage IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8667] over the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation to the IS-IS YANG data model [RFC9130]. Original (Section 2): This document defines a YANG data model for IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane. It is an augmentation of the IS-IS base model. --> 4) <!--[rfced] RFC 8402 is only cited in the YANG module. May we add a citation to RFC 8402 to the this sentence preceding the YANG module as well as add a reference in the Normative References section? Original: [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8667], [RFC9020], [RFC9130], and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] are referenced in the YANG module. Perhaps: [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8402], [RFC8667], [RFC9020], [RFC9130], and [RFC9855] are referenced in the YANG module. ... [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. --> 5) <!--[rfced] These two sentences in the description clauses of the YANG module are phrased similarly. Should they be rephrased to match? If yes, should "IP" appear before "FRR" or before "interface"? Original: This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP FRR with TILFA. ... This augments ISIS IP interface level-2 FRR with TILFA. --> 6) <!--[rfced] We have updated this description text in the YANG module for clarity. Please review and confirm that the intended meaning has not been altered. Original: A path providing node a disjoint path for SRLG links from the primary path will be selected over one that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path. Current: A path providing a node with a disjoint path for SRLG links from the primary path will be selected over a path that doesn't provide an SRLG disjoint path. --> 7) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have made some updates to the Security Considerations to match Section 3.7 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please let us know if any further updates are needed. We note some differences, specifically: a) Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." b) These paragraphs do not appear in the template. Please confirm they should remain. Original: The ability to disable or enable IS-IS Segment Routing support and/or change Segment Routing configurations can result in a Denial-of- Service (DoS) attack, as this may cause traffic to be dropped or misrouted. Please refer to Section 5 of [RFC8667] for more information on Segment Routing extensions. ... Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can disclose the operational state information of IS-IS protocol on a device. --> 8) <!--[rfced] Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document? Adjacency Segment Identifier, adjacency SID, adjacency Segment ID (Adj-SID) Link State Database (LSDB) Remote LFA (RLFA) Segment Routing (SR) --> 9) <!--[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. --> Thank you. Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Nov 21, 2025, at 10:56 AM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/11/21 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 * [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://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, [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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9902 (draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31) Title : A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing over the MPLS Data Plane Author(s) : S. Litkowski, Y. Qu, A. Lindem, I. Chen, J. Tantsura 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]
