Hi Alana, Removed RFC 8342 reference as well. Complete set of editorial diffs attached.
Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9903.orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Nov 29, 2025, at 4:08 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alana, > > Here is my complete set of editorial comments in RFC diff format. > > Thanks, > Acee > <rfc9903.orig.diff.html> > >> On Nov 29, 2025, at 3:20 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alana, >> >>> On Nov 28, 2025, at 5:28 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alana, >>> >>> I have the following editorial comments on the current version. None of >>> these suggested changes should require AD approval. >>> >>> Note that I'm keeping my former LabN affiliation in the draft since I did >>> much of the work while working there. >>> >>> I have one question, does the YANG model itself need to have the first >>> instance of non-well-known acronyms expanded >>> on the first usage? If so, there are some that need to be expanded (e.g., >>> SRMS, IP-FRR, and RLFA). >> >> SRMS seems to be the only one needed. Please add the first-use expansion to >> the YANG model as well. >> >> *** 694,703 **** >> >> grouping srms-preference-tlv { >> description >> ! "The SRMS Preference TLV is used to advertise a preference >> ! associated with the node that acts as an SRMS. SRMS >> ! advertisements with a higher preference value are preferred >> ! over those with a lower preference value."; >> reference >> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 3.4"; >> container srms-preference-tlv { >> --- 692,702 ---- >> >> grouping srms-preference-tlv { >> description >> ! "The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is >> ! used to advertise a preference associated with the node that >> ! acts as an SRMS. SRMS advertisements with a higher >> ! preference value are preferred over those with a lower >> ! preference value."; >> reference >> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 3.4"; >> container srms-preference-tlv { >> *************** >> >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >>> >>> For the first change, note that we have been removing this statement from >>> the abstract in other RFCs (e.g., RFC 9020). >>> >>> *************** >>> *** 74,82 **** >>> MPLS data plane. The defined YANG data model is an augmentation to >>> the OSPF YANG data model [RFC9129]. >>> >>> - The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network >>> - Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. >>> - >>> 1.1. Requirements Language >>> >>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >>> --- 74,79 ---- >>> *************** >>> *** 105,111 **** >>> >>> The "ietf-ospf-sr-mpls" module defines both the data nodes to >>> configure OSPF Segment Routing MPLS extensions and the additions to >>> ! the OSPF Link State Advertisements (LSAs) necessary to support >>> Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). The OSPF configuration >>> includes: >>> >>> --- 102,108 ---- >>> >>> The "ietf-ospf-sr-mpls" module defines both the data nodes to >>> configure OSPF Segment Routing MPLS extensions and the additions to >>> ! OSPF Link State Advertisements (LSAs) necessary to support >>> Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). The OSPF configuration >>> includes: >>> >>> *************** >>> *** 348,354 **** >>> base extended-prefix-range-flag; >>> description >>> "Inter-Area flag. Note that this is only applicable to OSPFv2 >>> ! since OSPFv3 advertises separate Inter-Area extended-LSA."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; >>> } >>> --- 345,351 ---- >>> base extended-prefix-range-flag; >>> description >>> "Inter-Area flag. Note that this is only applicable to OSPFv2 >>> ! since OSPFv3 advertises separate Inter-Area extended-LSAs."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; >>> } >>> *************** >>> *** 500,506 **** >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; >>> container extended-prefix-range-tlvs { >>> description >>> ! "List of range of prefixes."; >>> list extended-prefix-range-tlv { >>> description >>> "Range of prefixes."; >>> --- 497,503 ---- >>> "RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 4"; >>> container extended-prefix-range-tlvs { >>> description >>> ! "List of prefix ranges."; >>> list extended-prefix-range-tlv { >>> description >>> "Range of prefixes."; >>> *************** >>> *** 662,668 **** >>> leaf range-size { >>> type rt-types:uint24; >>> description >>> ! "SID range."; >>> } >>> uses sid-tlv-encoding; >>> } >>> --- 659,666 ---- >>> leaf range-size { >>> type rt-types:uint24; >>> description >>> ! "SID range. The return of a zero value would indicate >>> ! an error."; >>> } >>> uses sid-tlv-encoding; >>> } >>> *************** >>> *** 869,875 **** >>> "This augments the OSPF protocol configuration with Segment >>> Routing over the MPLS data plane. The following semantic >>> validation is to be performed for the configuration data: >>> ! - Assure the binding policies prefixes do not overlap."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 9020: YANG Data Model for Segment Routing"; >>> uses sr-mpls:sr-control-plane; >>> --- 868,875 ---- >>> "This augments the OSPF protocol configuration with Segment >>> Routing over the MPLS data plane. The following semantic >>> validation is to be performed for the configuration data: >>> ! - Assure prefixes specified in binding policies do not >>> ! overlap."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 9020: YANG Data Model for Segment Routing"; >>> uses sr-mpls:sr-control-plane; >>> *************** >>> *** 934,940 **** >>> configuration."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "This augments LAN interface adj-sid with neighbor-id."; >>> leaf neighbor-id { >>> type inet:ip-address; >>> mandatory true; >>> --- 934,941 ---- >>> configuration."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "This augments multi-access interface adj-sids with a >>> ! neighbor-id."; >>> leaf neighbor-id { >>> type inet:ip-address; >>> mandatory true; >>> *************** >>> *** 1072,1078 **** >>> leaf protection-requested { >>> type boolean; >>> description >>> ! "Describe if the Adj-SID is protected."; >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> --- 1073,1079 ---- >>> leaf protection-requested { >>> type boolean; >>> description >>> ! "Indicate if the Adj-SID is protected."; >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> *************** >>> *** 1414,1420 **** >>> "This augmentation is only valid for OSPFv3."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "SR Prefix-SID Sub-TLV in OSPFv3 Link-Scoped Intra-Area-Prefix >>> TLV for OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSAs."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 6"; >>> --- 1415,1421 ---- >>> "This augmentation is only valid for OSPFv3."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "SR Prefix-SID Sub-TLV in OSPFv3 Intra-Area-Prefix >>> TLV for OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSAs."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 6"; >>> *************** >>> *** 1480,1486 **** >>> E-Router LSAs."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "SR Sub-TLVs in OSPFv3 link-tlv for OSPFv3 E-Router LSAs."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 7"; >>> uses ospfv3-adj-sid-sub-tlvs; >>> --- 1481,1488 ---- >>> E-Router LSAs."; >>> } >>> description >>> ! "SR Sub-TLVs in OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV for OSPFv3 E-Router >>> ! LSAs."; >>> reference >>> "RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing, Section 7"; >>> uses ospfv3-adj-sid-sub-tlvs; >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>>> 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]
