Hi Alana, I've attached my editorial comments including removal of the reference to RFC 8342.
Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfc9902.orig.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
> On Nov 29, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alana, > > I just have a couple editorial comments. See attached diff. > > Thanks, > Acee > <rfc9902.orig.diff.html> > >> On Nov 25, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Thank you for your replies. Gunter’s approval has bee noted on the AUTH48 >> status page: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 >> >> We have also updated the files with the additional requested changes. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml >> >> The relevant diff files are posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 >> changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff >> between last version and this) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between >> last version and this) >> >> We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from >> each author prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 25, 2025, at 8:48 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello RFCEditor, >>> >>> Yes, 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 25, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Inline: GV> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 8:19 PM >>>> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>; Yingzhen >>>> Qu <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >>>> <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Editor RFC <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; auth48archive >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9902 <draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31> for >>>> your review >>>> >>>> >>>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking >>>> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional >>>> information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Authors and Gunter (AD)*, >>>> >>>> *Gunter - As the AD please review and approve of the following changes: >>>> - Section 2: deleted sentence of repetitive text >>>> >>>> GV> Approved >>>> >>>> - Section 6.1: added reference entry to RFC 8402 in the Normative >>>> References section >>>> >>>> GV> Approved >>>> >>>> Additionally, we asked the authors about the Security Considerations text, >>>> as it does not exactly match what appears in Section 3.7 of >>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28. Please review Section 4 and confirm that >>>> the missing sentence and added paragraphs are acceptable. >>>> >>>>> 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." >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: this should not be added as we have listed some sensitive >>>>> writable nodes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> GV> Approved. There is a clause in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-28 that >>>> approves this. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: yes, they should remain. >>>> >>>> GV> Approved. The claim is valid and accurate >>>> >>>> See this diff file: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html >>>> >>>> GV> Many thanks, >>>> >>>> G/ >>>> RTG AD >>>> >>>> >>>> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. >>>> >>>> ) We note that Yingzhen has added Helen’s new email address to this >>>> thread. Should her email address and affiliation be updated in the >>>> document? >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902.xml >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-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 and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>> >>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Alanna Paloma >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Nov 21, 2025, at 4:28 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for working on this document. Please see my answers below inline. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Yingzhen >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:57 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. --> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: I don't think we need more than what's in the title. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: ok. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [ Yingzhen]: I'm ok with the suggested removal. >>>>> >>>>> 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>. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: Yes, please. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: It should be "This augments ISIS interface level-1 IP FRR >>>>> with TILFA." and "This augments ISIS interface level-2 IP 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: The suggested change is fine. >>>>> >>>>> 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." >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: this should not be added as we have listed some sensitive >>>>> writable nodes. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: yes, they should remain. >>>>> >>>>> 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) >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>>> [Yingzhen]: We should use the acronym after the first use. >>>>> >>>>> 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-4Q9l2USxI >>>>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>>>> >>>>> * 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]
