I approve, too. Thanks. Jeffrey (removed my old email address)
-----Original Message----- From: Helen Chen <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:11 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>; Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Editor RFC <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; auth48archive <[email protected]>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9903 <draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-50> for your review Importance: High I approve. Thanks, Helen > On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:02 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeffrey and Helen - Please review and approve ASAP. > > Jeffrey - I can't look at my IETF Email without seeing copious Emails > from your esteemed colleagues - Now I'm just asking to see one from > you 😎 > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Dec 2, 2025, at 7:16 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Yingzhen, Jeffrey, and Helen, >> >> Please review and approve. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 5:07 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> Please see inline: GV> >>> >>> >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2025 6:56 PM >>> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang >>> <[email protected]>; Editor RFC <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; >>> auth48archive <[email protected]>; Helen Chen >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9903 >>> <draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-50> 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): added text >>> GV> approved. The added text makes the document more clear. >>> >>> - Section 6.2: removed informative reference entry for RFC 8342 >>> GV> Approved. The line mentioning this was removed, so indeed no more need. >>> >>> See this diff file: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uI >>> S6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-7-9duOg$ >>> >>> >>> Acee - Thank you for your replies. We’ve updated the files accordingly. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI >>> -0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-1c1LMtw$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI >>> -0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_s2qkiUQ$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbed >>> I-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-W4B-d3Q$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI >>> -0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC8NZTmYdw$ >>> >>> The relevant diff files are posted here: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQE >>> EbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_BFGnWdg$ (comprehensive diff) >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uI >>> S6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-7-9duOg$ (all AUTH48 changes) >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6 >>> AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-3mgLdew$ (htmlwdiff diff >>> between last version and this) >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc99 >>> 03-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8u >>> IS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_ZluRN9Q$ (rfcdiff between >>> last version and this) >>> >>> 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 3:53 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alana, >>>> >>>> Removed RFC 8342 reference as well. Complete set of editorial diffs >>>> attached. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> <rfc9903.orig.diff.html> >>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6 >>>>>>>> AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-1c1LMtw$ >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6 >>>>>>>> AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_s2qkiUQ$ >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS >>>>>>>> 6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-W4B-d3Q$ >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6 >>>>>>>> AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC8NZTmYdw$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here: >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4 >>>>>>>> H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_BFGnWdg$ >>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff) >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ >>>>>>>> rfc9903-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SM >>>>>>>> gG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-7-9duOg$ (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/r >>>>>>>> fc9903__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEE >>>>>>>> bbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC9P6jYkrA$ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >>>>>>>>>> __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbed >>>>>>>>>> I-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-lXv1q3w$ . --> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/style >>>>>>>>>> guide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_MagOETA$ >>>>>>>>>> > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC8H2Glx-w$ >>>>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC9yvd9_Cg$ >>>>>>>>>> ). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_CwpIZCQ$ >>>>>>>>>> >. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch >>>>>>>>>> /msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-g >>>>>>>>>> k!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn >>>>>>>>>> 3es9lj1-3QC8wB77N5g$ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch >>>>>>>>>> /browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_S >>>>>>>>>> MgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC8erdPxow$ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8 >>>>>>>>>> uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC8NZTmYdw$ >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H >>>>>>>>>> 8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-W4B-d3Q$ >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8 >>>>>>>>>> uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_s2qkiUQ$ >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8 >>>>>>>>>> uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-1c1LMtw$ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG >>>>>>>>>> _eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_BFGnWdg$ >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_S >>>>>>>>>> MgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC-fhhKjlw$ >>>>>>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/author >>>>>>>>>> s/rfc9903-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_ >>>>>>>>>> SMgG_eu4H8uIS6AdQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC_Qd2L0dw$ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48 >>>>>>>>>> /rfc9903__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CcxYvcmCyEOUwjL8HoP9_SMgG_eu4H8uIS6A >>>>>>>>>> dQEEbbedI-0BxULTAO2IwYn3es9lj1-3QC9P6jYkrA$ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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]
