All good from my side, thanks Tony Sent from Outlook for Mac From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 17:34 To: Head, Jordan <[email protected]> Cc: Tony Przygienda <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Przygienda, Tony <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing)
Hi Jordan, Your approval has been noted here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!naSwws9F3w4-zU2FdfsRBDhWjXkmIDcJc_0HLH-hVJ-HFoSfzq-mvMgUWh-Fb4kQshmmDWPWwoefT2yhfV6sv9VpIp8BBw$ Thank you! Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jun 2, 2026, at 7:00 PM, Head, Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: > > All done from my perspective, approved. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 2, 2026, at 7:05 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi Tony and Jordan, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcHWuSOeL$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcJS7z2xD$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcN-8pKrm$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcENi2VEh$ >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcBEIlnvR$ >> (comprehensive diff) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48diff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcF-jvfAs$ >> (Final Review changes) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcBzMIQRc$ >> (Final Review changes side by side) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-lastdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcLqa1fhY$ >> (last version to this one) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcLhctr_F$ >> (rfcdiff between last version and this) >> >> Please let us know if any further updates are necessary. Once we receive >> approvals from each author, we will move this document forward in the >> publication process. >> >> For the Final Review status of this document, please see: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!gvwJIn9egSjV5TJDNcRBGlWwVUcjwlOReZTMqmhFBeTcCgxyWN1SxxcDwDocWPyQutPYfpBjqiWgOnRWcCIpAkZN$ >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jun 2, 2026, at 2:47 PM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> AFAIS the email was already on my tracker, just not as primary. tried to >>> add again just in case >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:11 PM Head, Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Alanna, >>> >>> Sorry to flip back and forth, can you revert Tony’s e-mail back to what it >>> was previously? He can add that e-mail to his datatracker account as time >>> permits. >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Other than that, a couple of edits: >>> >>> • Section 1 - Typo >>> >>> the first sentence has RFIT instead of RIFT >>> >>> • Section 3 - Missing word >>> >>> CURRENT: >>> “While no explicit restrictions are placed on how Key-Value elements are or >>> how they are used…” >>> >>> SHOULD BE: >>> “While no explicit restrictions are placed on how Key-Value elements are >>> used...” >>> >>> • Section 3.1 - Missing article >>> >>> CURRENT: >>> “…will select the KV TIE with highest System ID...” >>> >>> SHOULD BE: >>> “…will select the KV TIE with the highest System ID...” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 5:32 PM >>> To: Head, Jordan <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>> [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 >>> (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) >>> >>> Hi Jordan, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4nj-Z3I3$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4r7LnyyV$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4uha_hUb$ >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4o5SJhJJ$ >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4jaQ12yp$ >>> (comprehensive diff) >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48diff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4l3D8D_f$ >>> (Final Review changes) >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4oU7IMgU$ >>> (Final Review changes side by side) >>> >>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further >>> updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is >>> published as an RFC. >>> >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the Final Review status >>> page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >>> >>> For the Final Review status of this document, please see: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!nbE_lfaRRMS1LgijK1ecW-H6EdTXoEbekrsKu56KKh2KRYS0WHm0naRAJAn0k382_AC8TIWeyMPL9KRB4rBnpD-7$ >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Jun 1, 2026, at 6:45 AM, Head, Jordan >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Sorry about that, ignore my first point. >>>> Let’s change it to [email protected] >>>> From: Head, Jordan <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 9:44 AM >>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony >>>> <[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]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 >>>> (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) >>>> Alanna, Alice, >>>> Thank you for reviewing and editing our document! >>>> Replies inline as jhead>> >>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 6:33 PM >>>> To: Head, Jordan <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> <[email protected]>, Przygienda, Tony <[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]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Final review: RFC-to-be 9992 >>>> (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) >>>> Authors, >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>>> the following >>>> questions, which are also in the source file. >>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Tony, we note that the email address used in this document >>>> does not match your email addresses as they appear here: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Tony*20Przygienda__;JQ!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP4-EVRew$ >>>> Which email address would you like to appear in the RFC? >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> Spoke with Tony, the HPE e-mail is correct. >>>> 2) <!--[rfced] May we clarify this citation as follows? >>>> Original: >>>> [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] is an example of this type of implementation. >>>> Perhaps: >>>> For example, [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] describes this type of implementation. >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> Good with this. >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether this note should be in the <aside> >>>> element. >>>> It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less >>>> important >>>> or tangential to the content that surrounds it" >>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary*aside__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP6jMKCS0$ >>>> ). >>>> Original: >>>> *NOTE:*Like [RFC9692], this section uses terms to denote >>>> directionality, specifically, "northbound" meaning "toward the top of >>>> the fabric" and "southbound" meaning "toward the bottom of the >>>> fabric". >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> Yes, <aside> works here. >>>> 4) <!--[rfced] In Figure 6, is the second comma necessary? >>>> Original: >>>> | (System ID, >>>> | Level), >>>> Perhaps: >>>> | (System ID, >>>> | Level) >>>> —> >>>> jhead>> A matter of taste really, it can be removed. >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Three lines in Figure 9 exceeded the 69-character line >>>> limit. >>>> We updated as follows; please let us if they should be modified otherwise. >>>> Original: >>>> /// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according Bloom Filter >>>> in the >>>> southbound >>>> /// key value target. >>>> pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -> KeyValueTargetType >>>> { >>>> (0 as usize .. 3) >>>> .map(|s| { >>>> let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _); >>>> rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ >>>> *nv) % 64 >>>> }) >>>> .fold(0, |v, nv| v | (1 << nv)) >>>> } >>>> Current: >>>> /// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according >>>> /// Bloom Filter in the southbound key value target. >>>> pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -> >>>> KeyValueTargetType { >>>> (0 as usize .. 3) >>>> .map(|s| { >>>> let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _); >>>> rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, >>>> |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ *nv) % 64 >>>> }) >>>> .fold(0, |v, nv| v | (1 << nv)) >>>> } >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> This is fine. >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of the sourcecode >>>> element in >>>> Section 3.2 in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of >>>> preferred values for "type" >>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPsfFFxuk$ >>>> ) >>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. >>>> Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. >>>> In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically, >>>> should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another >>>> element? >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> Not setting it is fine. No other figures need to be set as >>>> <sourcecode> >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] 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. >>>> Link State Database (LSDB) >>>> Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> I’m good with your expansions. >>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>>> online >>>> Style Guide >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPTb-pMFc$ >>>> > >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> jhead>> No further changes required here. Thanks for the reminder. >>>> Thank you. >>>> Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> On May 29, 2026, [email protected] wrote: >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>> RFC Author(s): >>>> -------------- >>>> Final Review for RFC-to-be 9992 >>>> <draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing> >>>> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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, please see the Unavailable Authors >>>> section >>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process*unavailable-authors__;Iw!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPVYNBkQk$ >>>> ). >>>> 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__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPdp1wxXw$ >>>> ). >>>> * 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__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPOACCRDc$ >>>> >. >>>> * 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 an archival mailing list >>>> to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial >>>> queue; it is not an active discussion list: >>>> * More info: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPRq5grgI$ >>>> * The archive itself: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPjeFl08g$ >>>> * 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/authors/rfc9992.xml__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPpTauVSg$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHP5RckF0M$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.pdf__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPtHkCfXc$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992.txt__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPPL3b3bQ$ >>>> Diff file of the text: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-diff.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPLWZSVv4$ >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-rfcdiff.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPJbWzwIs$ >>>> (side by side) >>>> Diff of the XML: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9992-xmldiff1.html__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPSGvzgzg$ >>>> Tracking progress >>>> ----------------- >>>> Details on the status of your Final Review are here: >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9992/__;!!NpxR!g2r540mi05sUS4XCIajxx4ubLhMmveiSk-R9wqI3OEW_RapTaFEFFgzZ83qOryc45ApVIxoMqnB8NtHPa884eUQ$ >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>> RFC Editor >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC 9992 (draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-processing) >>>> Title : Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) Key/Value Topology >>>> Information Elements Structure and Processing >>>> Author(s) : J. Head, Ed., T. Przygienda >>>> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui Zhang, Jeff Tantsura >>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
