Hi Yingzhen and Helen, Thank you for sending your approvals. They have been noted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9902
Once we’ve received approval from Stephane, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 4, 2025, at 10:11 AM, Helen Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I approve. > > Thanks, > Helen > >> On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:03 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Helen and Stephane - Please review and approve ASAP. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 7:17 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Yingzhen, Helen, Jeff, and Stephane, >>> >>> Please review and approve. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 6:08 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
