Hi Alanna, Pleas see inline: GV>
________________________________ From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2025 6:55 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]> Cc: Helen Chen <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Editor RFC <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; auth48archive <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AD] 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 Acee and Gunter (AD)*, *Gunter - As the AD, please review and approve of the following updates: - Section 1: removed text GV> Approved - Section 3 (within the YANG module): removed text GV> - Section 6.1: removed the normative reference entry for RFC 8342 GV> Approved. The text referencing this was removed from the body during the rfc editing process. Be well, G/ See this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9902-auth48diff.html Acee - Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. 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) Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902 We will await any further changes you may have as well as approvals from each author and *Gunter (AD) prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 1, 2025, at 3:55 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alana, > I've attached my editorial comments including removal of the reference to RFC > 8342. > > Thanks, > Acee > <rfc9902.orig.diff.html> > >> 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]
