Hi Ran, Thank you for responding to our issues/queries. We have noted that all RPC queries have been resolved at this document’s AUTH48 status page (see link below).
Please contact us with any further changes you may have to the document or your approval of the document in its current form. Once we have approvals from each party listed at the AUTH48 status page, we will be ready to move this document forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.xml The diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-diff.html (comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page is viewable here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9983 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > Hi RFC Editor, > > Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline. > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > To: 陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;[email protected]<[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>; > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;[email protected]<[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>; > Date: 2026年05月13日 02:53 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9983 <draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-13> for your > review > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] We had the following question about the title of the document: > > We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing YANG > modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for > example: > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks > (WSONs) > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be similarly > updated. > > -->Ran：Please keep the current title "OSPFv2 Anycast Property Advertisement". > The document primarily defines a protocol extension (AC‑flag) for OSPFv2; > the YANG module is a companion. Changing to "A YANG Data Model for ..." > would misrepresent the main content. > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->Ran：Extended > Prefix TLV, AC‑flag, YANG > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Should "Flag" be added to this text to match use in the > Abstract? > > Original: > The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV that is contained in the OSPFv2 > Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used to advertise additional attributes > associated with a prefix. > > Perhaps: > The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flag that is contained in the OSPFv2 > Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used to advertise additional attributes > associated with a prefix. > > --> Ran：We suggest keeping the original text as is. The phrase > "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV" correctly refers to the entire TLV > structure, not just its Flag field. Adding "Flag" would therefore be > inaccurate. > > > 4) <!--[rfced] FYI: we have put the YANG Tree in the "Tree for the YANG > Data Model" section in <sourcecode> with type="yangtree". > -->Ran：Acknowledged, fine. > > > 5) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions, comments, concerns regarding > the YANG Data Model in Section 4.2 itself: > > a) Please note that we have added the BCP 14 keywords paragraph as we > see at least one use of MUST NOT in the description fields. > > --> Ran：Acknowledged, thanks. > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We note the following deviations from the template at > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines: > > a) All writable data nodes vs. This data node > > Template: > All writable data nodes are likely to be reasonably sensitive or > vulnerable... > > This document: > This data node can be considered sensitive or vulnerable... > > Please let us know if/how to update. > -->Ran：We appreciate the guidance provided in the template. > In this specific module, only one writable data node exists. > Therefore, we would prefer to keep the phrase "This data node" > as it accurately reflects the module’s content. Following the > template's plural form would not be precise in this case. > > b) We have added "and delete operations" and "or authentication" in > the text below. Please let us know any objections. > > Original: > Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to this > data node without proper protection can have a negative effect on > network operations. > > Current (matches template): > Write operations (e.g., edit-config) and delete operations to this > data node without proper protection or authentication can have a > negative effect on network operations. > -->Ran: Thank you for adding “and delete operations”and “or > authentication”to align with the template. We fully agree with > these changes and accept them. > > c) FYI - We have left this variance as was. Please let us know > objections. > > At the template: > The following subtrees and data nodes... > > In the doc: > Specifically, the following subtree and data node... > -->Ran: We recognise the template uses the plural form. However, > as there is only one relevant data node in this module, we prefer > to keep the singular “subtree and data node” for accuracy. > > d) FYI - We have left this variance as was. Please let us know objections. > > At the template: > Some of the readable data nodes... > > In the doc: > The readable data node... > -->Ran: Similarly, because the module contains just one readable data node, > we would prefer to retain “The readable data node” as originally written. > > > 7) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to > terminology use throughout the document: > > We have updated to use AC-Flag consistently throughout to match the > use in the IANA section. > -->Ran: Acknowledged, thanks. > > 8) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to > abbreviation use throughout the document: > > Please note that we have expanded abbreviations on first use. > Please review for accuracy. > -->Ran:We have reviewed the abbreviations expanded on first use and > confirm that they are accurate for this document. No further changes are > needed. > Thanks. > > 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. > -->Ran: Reviewed; no issues found. Thanks! > > Many thanks！ > Ran. > > Thank you. > > Megan Ferguson > RFC Production Center > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2026/05/12 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9983 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9983 (draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-13) > > Title : OSPFv2 Anycast Property Advertisement > Author(s) : R. Chen, D. Zhao, P. Psenak, K. Talaulikar, C. Lin > WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > On May 12, 2026, at 12:53 PM, [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] We had the following question about the title of the document: > > We note that most of the recently published RFCs containing YANG > modules format their titles as "A YANG Data Model for...", for > example: > > RFC 9094 - A YANG Data Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks > (WSONs) > RFC 9093 - A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types > RFC 9067 - A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy > > Please consider whether the title of this document should be similarly > updated. > > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Should "Flag" be added to this text to match use in the > Abstract? > > Original: > The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV that is contained in the OSPFv2 > Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used to advertise additional attributes > associated with a prefix. > > Perhaps: > The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flag that is contained in the OSPFv2 > Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used to advertise additional attributes > associated with a prefix. > > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] FYI: we have put the YANG Tree in the "Tree for the YANG > Data Model" section in <sourcecode> with type="yangtree". --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions, comments, concerns regarding > the YANG Data Model in Section 4.2 itself: > > a) Please note that we have added the BCP 14 keywords paragraph as we > see at least one use of MUST NOT in the description fields. > > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We note the following deviations from the template at > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines: > > a) All writable data nodes vs. This data node > > Template: > All writable data nodes are likely to be reasonably sensitive or > vulnerable... > > This document: > This data node can be considered sensitive or vulnerable... > > Please let us know if/how to update. > > b) We have added "and delete operations" and "or authentication" in > the text below. Please let us know any objections. > > Original: > Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to this > data node without proper protection can have a negative effect on > network operations. > > Current (matches template): > Write operations (e.g., edit-config) and delete operations to this > data node without proper protection or authentication can have a > negative effect on network operations. > > c) FYI - We have left this variance as was. Please let us know > objections. > > At the template: > The following subtrees and data nodes... > > In the doc: > Specifically, the following subtree and data node... > > d) FYI - We have left this variance as was. Please let us know objections. > > At the template: > Some of the readable data nodes... > > In the doc: > The readable data node... > > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to > terminology use throughout the document: > > We have updated to use AC-Flag consistently throughout to match the > use in the IANA section. > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to > abbreviation use throughout the document: > > Please note that we have expanded abbreviations on first use. > Please review for accuracy. > > --> > > > 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. > > Megan Ferguson > RFC Production Center > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2026/05/12 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9983-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9983 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9983 (draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-13) > > Title : OSPFv2 Anycast Property Advertisement > Author(s) : R. Chen, D. Zhao, P. Psenak, K. Talaulikar, C. Lin > 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]
