Hi Alanna, Thanks for the update. Could you please also remove the last paragraph in the “Acknowledgments” section, about "Author affiliation with The MITRE Corporation…”.
Thanks, Helen > On Nov 25, 2025, at 3:58 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. > > ) FYI - We have moved Derek Yeung’s name out of the YANG module and into this > sentence in the Acknowledgements section. Please review and let us know if > any further updates are needed. > > Original: > The authors wish to thank Dean Bogdanovic and Kiran Koushik Agrahara > Sreenivasa for their YANG module discussions. > > Current: > The authors wish to thank Dean Bogdanovic, Kiran Koushik Agrahara > Sreenivasa, and Derek Yeung for their YANG module discussions. > >> 9) <!--[rfced] We note that Derek Yeung is listed as an author in the >> YANG module but is not listed as an author of this document. Should >> we remove his name from the YANG module and add it to the >> Acknowledgements section? >> >> Original: >> Author: Derek Yeung >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> --> >> >> [Yingzhen]: Yes, please add Derek to the acknowledgements. > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author > prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9903 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > >> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:55 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks to Yingzhen for adding my new email address. >> >> Hello RFC Editor, >> >> Please update my (Ing-Wher Chen) email address and affiliation if possible. >> Along with the affiliation change, please also remove the last paragraph in >> the “Acknowledgments” section. That paragraph currently states "Author >> affiliation with The MITRE Corporation…”. >> >> Thanks, >> Helen >> >>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 2:30 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Adding Helen's new email address. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yingzhen >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:58 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 there is no mention of an "sr-protocol >>> grouping" >>> in RFC 9020, but it does use "'sr-control-plane' grouping". Should the >>> parenthetical text below be updated to match what appears in RFC 9020? >>> >>> Original: >>> * OSPF instance level configuration imported from the ietf-segment- >>> routing-mpls YANG module including the mapping server bindings and >>> the per-protocol Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) (refer to the >>> sr-protocol grouping [RFC9020]). >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> * OSPF instance level configuration imported from the ietf-segment- >>> routing-mpls YANG module including the mapping server bindings and >>> the per-protocol Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) (refer to the >>> "sr-control-plane" grouping [RFC9020]). >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFCs 8665 and 8666 use "Extended Prefix Range >>> TLV" >>> rather than "extended range TLV". May we update the two list items below >>> to match the corresponding RFCs? >>> >>> Original: >>> * OSPFv2 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8665] in the OSPF >>> Extended-Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. >>> ... >>> * OSPFv3 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- >>> Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, >>> and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> * OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Range TLV encodings [RFC8665] in the OSPF >>> Extended-Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. >>> ... >>> * OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- >>> Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, >>> and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have removed the following items from their >>> corresponding lists in Section 2 as they were each listed twice. >>> >>> Original: >>> * OSPFv2 Prefix SID Sub-TLV encodings [RFC8665] included the OSPF >>> Extended Prefix TLV which is advertised in the OSPF Extended >>> Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. >>> ... >>> * OSPFv3 extended range TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 E- >>> Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA, >>> and E-Type-7-LSA [RFC8362]. >>> ... >>> * OSPFv3 Adj-SID Sub-TLV [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV >>> [RFC8362]. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that there is no mention of "Extended Prefix Range >>> TLV" >>> in RFC 8362, but it is defined in RFC 8666 (note that "Intra-Area-Prefix >>> TLV", >>> "Inter-Area-Prefix TLV", and "External-Prefix TLV" are defined in RFC 8362). >>> Please review and let us know if/how the text or citation should be updated >>> for >>> correctness. >>> >>> Original: >>> * OSPFv3 Prefix-SID Sub-TLV encodings [RFC8666] in the OSPFv3 Intra- >>> Area Prefix TLV, Inter-Area Prefix TLV, External Prefix TLV, and >>> OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV [RFC8362]. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] are not referenced in >>> the >>> YANG module but are listed in the introductory text for the YANG module. >>> Additionally, [RFC8665], [RFC8666], [RFC9020], and [RFC9129] are referenced >>> in the YANG module but are not listed in the introductory text. May we >>> update >>> the introductory text as follows? Note that, if yes, we will also remove the >>> references for [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] from the Normative References >>> section. >>> >>> Original: >>> [RFC2328], [RFC4915], [RFC5340], [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], >>> [RFC8349], [RFC9587], and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] are >>> referenced in the YANG module. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> [RFC4915], [RFC6991], [RFC8102], [RFC8294], [RFC8349], [RFC8665], >>> [RFC8666], [RFC9020]. [RFC9129], [RFC9587], and [RFC9855] are >>> referenced in the YANG module. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this description text >>> in the YANG module, particularly with "interface" repeated. Please review >>> and let us know how it should be updated for clarity. >>> >>> Original: >>> This augments broadcast and non-broadcast multi-access >>> interface segment routing interface configuration. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This augments broadcast and non-broadcast multi-access >>> interface Segment Routing and interface configuration. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!--[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. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!--[rfced] We note that Derek Yeung is listed as an author in the >>> YANG module but is not listed as an author of this document. Should >>> we remove his name from the YANG module and add it to the >>> Acknowledgements section? >>> >>> Original: >>> Author: Derek Yeung >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!--[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. Specifically: >>> >>> - Should this sentence from the template be added? "There are no >>> particularly sensitive RPC or action operations." >>> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations >>> >>> a) 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. >>> >>> IP Fast Reroute (IP-FRR) >>> No Penultimate Hop-Popping) (No-PHP) >>> Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) >>> Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) >>> >>> >>> b) 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 for >>> consistency? >>> >>> Adjacency Segment Identifier, adjacency Segment ID, adjacency SID (Adj-SID) >>> Denial-of-Service (DoS) >>> Remote LFA (RLFA) >>> Segment ID, Segment Identifier (SID) >>> Segment Routing Mapping Server, SR Mapping Server (SRMS) >>> Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) >>> >>> >>> c) FYI, we updated the expansion of "SRLG" from "Shared Resource Link >>> Group" to "Shared Risk Link Group" to match how it is expanded in >>> past RFCs. >>> >>> d) FYI, we updated one instance of "SRBG" to "SRGB" (Section 4) to >>> match usage in the rest of the document. >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>> >>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used >>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they >>> may be made consistent. >>> >>> Segment Routing vs. segment routing >>> >>> >>> b) For consistency and to reflect how they appear in previously published >>> RFCs, we have updated the terminology to the form on the right. Please >>> review >>> and let us know if any further updates are needed. >>> >>> Adj-SID sub-TLV, Adj-SID sub-tlv, Adj-sid sub-tlv > Adj-SID Sub-TLV >>> >>> Prefix SID Sub-TLV, prefix SID sub-TLV, Prefix SID sub-TLV > Prefix-SID >>> Sub-TLV >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 13) <!-- [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 10:57 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/rfc9903.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9903-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9903 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9903 (draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-50) >>> >>> Title : A YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing over the MPLS >>> Data Plane >>> Author(s) : Y. Qu, A. Lindem, Z. Zhang, I. Chen >>> 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]
