Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your review

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.

The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492

The AUTH48 FAQs are available at:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you!
RFC Editor/mc

> On Sep 18, 2023, at 7:51 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We note that this
> XML file was submitted in "prepped" format. We have "unprepped" the file to
> make editing the document easier. Note that this does not impact the document
> text but does cause many changes to the XML code. --> 
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI- We have rephrased the following sentence to introduce the
> abbreviations for "Segment Routing" (SR) and "Loop-Free Alternates" (LFAs)
> upon first use. Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original:
>   Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional 
>   applications (e.g., Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free 
>   Alternates) that also make use of the link attribute 
>   advertisements have been defined. 
> 
> Current:
>   Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional 
>   applications such as Segment Routing (SR) Policy and Loop-Free 
>   Alternates (LFAs) that also make use of the link attribute 
>   advertisements have been defined. -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest updating "SLRG group" to "SLRG" to avoid redundancy (if
> expanded, “SLRG group” would read “Shared Risk Link Group group”). Please
> review and let us know if any updates are needed.
> 
> Original:
>   The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast
>   Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any
>   SRLG group with the protected link.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast
>   Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any
>   SRLG with the protected link. -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following text. This sentence mentions Section
> 4.2, but Section 4.2 does not exist in this document. Was "Section 4.1"
> the intended text here?
> 
> Original:
>   Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application
>   Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined
>   applications are usable by any application, subject to the
>   restrictions specified in Section 4.2.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application
>   Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined
>   applications are usable by any application, subject to the
>   restrictions specified in Section 4.1. -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Is it intentional for RFC 9256 to be the only RFC that uses
> <displayreference> for citation tags? Please let us know if any updates are
> needed for consistency.
> 
>   [RFC9256] -> [SEGMENT-ROUTING]
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] The following expansions are defined more than once throughout the
> document. May we use the abbreviated form for the following expansions upon
> first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide")?
> 
> Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs)
> Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM)
> Segment Routing (SR)
> traffic engineering (TE)
> User Defined Application Bit Mask (UDABM) -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [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. 
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
> still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mc/kc
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 5:50 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/09/18
> 
> 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
> 
>  *  [e-mail] (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).
> 
>  *  [e-mail], 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, 
>       [e-mail] 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/rfc9492.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-xmldiff1.html
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9492 (draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06)
> 
> Title            : OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes
> Author(s)        : P. Psenak, Ed., L. Ginsberg, W. Henderickx, J. Tantsura, J. Drake
> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston