Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

Tony,

Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly; please see the follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml

This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-auth48diff.html

-- Re: #11 
> Please do not remove, the sentence applies each to a different mechanism described in the according paragraph. Even they are verbatimely same. 

OK; the repeated sentence has been restored in the Security Considerations. Should a lead-in phrase be added to make it clear that it applies to a different mechanism than the first instance? 

Currently appears twice:
>    Since the available security procedures will vary by
>    deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
>    beyond the scope of this document.
> 


-- Re: #13b and 13c
Would you like any updates for "non-FR"  or for the usage of LSPDU vs. LSP?


-- Re: #14
We have updated the document as requested, including changing 'traditional' to 'standard'.  Along the lines of John's suggestions, other options, which may not be accurate choices in this case, include 'conventional', 'typical', 'commonly used', and 'long-established'.

Regarding the following note, please clarify where you would like [ISO10589] to be cited. Is your request to cite it at each mention of 'standard'?

> To avoid confusing the skilled reader following reference must be used when “standard” is meant
>  
>    [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
>               Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction
>               with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
>               Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November
>               2002.


-- Section 2.1: Should "whereas" be "where" here? If not, how should this be rephrased?

Original:
   ISIS Level-1 and Level-2 areas, mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2:
      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.

Current:
   IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
      IS-IS concepts whereas a routing domain has two "levels" with a
      single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects multiple L1
      areas for scaling and reliability purposes. 


-- Section 1: FYI, this sentence has been updated from 'standard' to 'Standards Track document' as it seems to refer to the status of a document in the IETF context. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.

Original: 
   It is expected that deployment at scale, and suitable time in 
   operation, will provide sufficient evidence to either make this 
   extension a standard, or suggest necessary modifications to accomplish this. 

Perhaps:
   It is expected that deployment at scale, and suitable time in 
   operation, will provide sufficient evidence to either put this 
   extension into a Standards Track document or suggest necessary 
   modifications to accomplish that.

We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
before continuing the publication process. This page shows 
the AUTH48 status of your document:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

> On Mar 8, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Antoni Przygienda <prz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Keywords: scalability
> Yes, please
> Terminology is good
> Ok, as long it’s consistent across the document
> Massaged
>  
>       Traditional IS-IS architecture prescribes a routing domain with two
>       "levels" where a single L2 area functions as the "backbone" that connects
>       multiple L1 areas amongst themselves for scaling and reliability purposes. 
>       In such architecture, L2 can be used as transit for traffic carried from one L1 area to another, but
>       L1 areas themselves cannot be used for that purpose because the L2 level must
>       be a single "connected" entity, and all traffic exiting an L1 area flows along L2 routers until the
>       traffic arrives at the destination L1 area itself.
>  
> Please change per suggestion
> Ditto
> Yes, please change per suggestion
> Ditto
> Ditto
> Please do not remove, the sentence applies each to a different mechanism described in the according paragraph. Even they are verbatimely same. 
> Please change per suggestion
> Remove CAPS on all occurences of “RESERVED”
> Quickly did after reading NIST. I don’t see any terms that are not inclusive though of course anything can be argued to be non-inclusive in the ever expanding list of political correctness. So,  unless I’m pointed to specific terms that insult I am at a loss what to look for further.
>  
> As to “traditional”, here are suggestions to make it (more) readable for <insert here politically correct term for genus homo individuals> not skilled in ISIS previous art. 
>  
> “This arrangement gives the L2 topology significantly better scaling properties than traditionally used flat designs.”
>  
> Could be replaced with “prevalently” ? 
>  
> “Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.”
>  
> Traditional can be removed 
>  
> “In traditional ISIS L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic but L1”
> “The traditional approach to increasing the scale of an IS-IS deployment is to break it up into multiple L1 flooding domains and a single L2 backbone”
>  
> Can be replaced with “standard”. To avoid confusing the skilled reader following reference must be used when “standard” is meant
>  
>    [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
>               Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction
>               with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
>               Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November
>               2002.
>  
>  
> “Unmodified (traditional) L2 routers”
> “(those having traditional L2 adjacencies)”
> “client will have both traditional L2 adjacencies and flood reflector L2 adjacencies.”
> “A flood reflector MUST NOT form any traditional L2 adjacencies.”
> “flood reflector MUST NOT form any traditional L2 adjacencies.”
> “When two flood reflector clients form a traditional L2 adjacency the Cluster IDs are disregarded.”
> “
>  
> Same
>  
>  
> Thanks for the thorough read through and good suggestions
>  
> Tony
>  
>  
> From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 08:56
> To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, John Scudder <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve the following
> questions, which are also in the XML 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!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVj6qNPYpg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVj6qNPYpg$> .
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for correctness?
> The changes are to
> - move the phrase "that use the entire forwarding capacity
> of the L1 areas" so that it modifies "networks"
> - change "introducing" to "introduces" for consistent verb tense
> 
> Original:
>    It allows networks to be built that use
>    the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas, while at the same
>    time introducing control plane scaling benefits provided by L2 flood
>    reflectors.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    It allows networks that use
>    the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas to be built, while
>    at the same time it introduces control plane scaling benefits that
>    are provided by L2 flood reflectors.
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Since a glossary is an alphabetized list of terms,
> may we alphabetize the terms in the "Glossary"? Or would you prefer to
> change "Glossary" to "Terminology" and leave the terms in
> their current order?
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to match past RFCs, we updated "IS-IS Level-1" and "IS-IS
> Level-2" to "IS-IS Level 1" and "IS-IS Level 2", respectively.
> 
> Original:
>    ISIS Level-1 and Level-2 areas, mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2:
>       Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
>       "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
>       multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> 
> Current:
>    IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
>       Traditional IS-IS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
>       "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
>       multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble parsing these two sentences and understanding
> what "it" refers to at the end of the second sentence. For clarity, may
> we update the sentence as follows or otherwise?
> 
> Also, please clarify "L1-L1". Should "L1-L1" be written "L1->L1"
> to use notation similar to within this document for "L2->L1"?
> 
> Original:
>       Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
>       "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
>       multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes. In
>       traditional ISIS L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic but
>       L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose since L2 level must be
>       "connected" and all traffic flows along L2 routers until it
>       arrives at the destination L1 area.
> 
> Perhaps:
>       Traditional IS-IS concepts where a routing domain has two
>       "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
>       multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.  In
>       traditional ISIS, L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic, but
>       L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose because the L2 level must
>       be "connected", and all traffic flows along L2 routers until the
>       traffic arrives at the destination L1 area.
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] The comma in this sentence breaks apart the objects of the
> verb. We suggest replacing ", and" with "and to build". Please let us
> know if you prefer otherwise.
> 
> Original:
>    Flood Reflector Client:
>       Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
>       Reflectors, and normal adjacencies to other clients and L2 nodes
>       not participating in flood reflection.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Flood Reflector Client:
>       Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
>       Reflectors and to build normal adjacencies to other clients and
>       L2 nodes not participating in flood reflection.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Does "this" refer to "a flood reflection mechanism"
> mentioned in the preceding paragraph?
> 
> Original:
>    First, this allows multi-area IS-IS deployments to scale without any
>    major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on most of the nodes
>    deployed in the network.
> 
> Suggested:
>    First, a flood reflection mechanism allows multi-area IS-IS deployments
>    to scale without any major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on
>    most of the nodes deployed in the network.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Is "L2 computation"
> the subject of "can lead"?
> 
> Original:
>    The L2
>    computation determines the egress L1/L2 and with that can create
>    illusions of ECMP where there is none, and in certain scenarios lead
>    to an L1/L2 egress which is not globally optimal.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The L2
>    computation determines the egress L1/L2 and, with that, can create
>    illusions of ECMP where there is none; and in certain scenarios,
>    the L2 computation can lead to an L1/L2 egress that is not globally
>    optimal.
> 
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] This sentence in Section 4.2 and 4.4 seems to be pointing to
> Section 4.1. Would you like these two instances to mention the section number?
> 
> Original:
>    Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
>       is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV and obeys
>       the same rules.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
>       is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV in Section
>       4.1 and obeys the same rules.
> -->
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence, particularly "and in the
> following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel."
> May we update to the following? Or is there another way we can update for
> clarity?
> 
> Original:
>    Due
>    to the rules in Section 4.6 the computation in the resulting topology
>    is relatively simple, the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
>    guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
>    the following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Due
>    to the rules in Section 4.6, the computation in the resulting topology
>    is relatively simple: the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
>    guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
>    the following hop, it is guaranteed to reach the L2 egress to which
>    it has a forwarding tunnel.
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI, this sentence appears at the end of the 1st paragraph
> and was repeated at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the Security Considerations,
> so the second instance has been removed. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> 
>    Since the available security procedures will vary by
>    deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
>    beyond the scope of this document.
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased for clarity? In particular, the phrase
> "in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does not provide..."
> reads oddly; may we change "if" to "and" as shown below?
> 
> Original:
>    Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
>    deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
>    attacker in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does
>    not provide mechanisms strong enough guaranteeing the integrity of
>    the messages exchanged.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
>    deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
>    attacker in case a tunnel is compromised and the tunnel itself does
>    not provide mechanisms strong enough to guarantee the integrity of
>    the messages exchanged.
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
> 
> a) This term is capitalized inconsistently. Please review and let us
> know if/how they may be made consistent.
> 
> Reserved vs. RESERVED
> 
> 
> b) Please clarify "non-FR"; does it refer to "non flood reflection"?
> May it be explained as follows, or otherwise?
> 
> Original:
>    In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
>    medium, and where some other L2 router, which is neither a flood
>    reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router") attaches ...
> 
> Perhaps:
>    In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
>    medium, and where some other L2 router that is neither a flood
>    reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", where
>    "FR" stands for flood reflection) attaches ...
> 
> c) Please review usage of LSPDU vs. LSP.
> It seems this document uses both to refer to "Link State PDU".
> For consistency, would you like to update all instances of LSPDU to LSP,
> or vice versa?
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [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!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVg5iF7yYw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVg5iF7yYw$> >
> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> 
> In addition, please consider whether "tradition", "traditional", and
> "traditionally" should be updated for clarity.  While the NIST website
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructio*5C__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjkoQ-5hA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructio*5C__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjkoQ-5hA$>
> ns#table1>
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/st/ar
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 6, 2023, at 11:51 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/03/06
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
> 
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> 
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViFPwbvxA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViFPwbvxA$> ).
> 
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> your approval.
> 
> Planning your review
> ---------------------
> 
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> 
> *  RFC Editor questions
> 
>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>   follows:
> 
>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> 
>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> 
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
> 
>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> 
> *  Content
> 
>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>   - contact information
>   - references
> 
> *  Copyright notices and legends
> 
>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>   (TLP – https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgU8_11zw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgU8_11zw$> ).
> 
> *  Semantic markup
> 
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>   <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVg2rTGnWw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVg2rTGnWw$> >.
> 
> *  Formatted output
> 
>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> 
> 
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
> 
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
> include:
> 
>   *  your coauthors
> 
>   *  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> (the RPC team)
> 
>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> 
>   *  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival mailing list
>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>      list:
> 
>     *  More info:
>        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVh5syzw_w$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVh5syzw_w$>
> 
>     *  The archive itself:
>        https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjnoR2QXA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjnoR2QXA$>
> 
>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>        [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> will be re-added to the CC list and
>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> 
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> 
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
> 
> Section # (or indicate Global)
> 
> OLD:
> old text
> 
> NEW:
> new text
> 
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> 
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> 
> 
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
> 
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> 
> 
> Files
> -----
> 
> The files are available here:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViohfKOGg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViohfKOGg$>
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgXKz3ueQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgXKz3ueQ$>
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViXlhEnNg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViXlhEnNg$>
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgyXa88CA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgyXa88CA$>
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViIm0m3_g$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytViIm0m3_g$>
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgNFXkpfQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVgNFXkpfQ$>  (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVhcxCuO0g$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVhcxCuO0g$>
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> diff files of the XML.
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.original.v2v3.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVhFA6nwuA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.original.v2v3.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVhFA6nwuA$>
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.form.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjnZcHdZQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.form.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjnZcHdZQ$>
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjJl7TaZg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjJl7TaZg$>
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9377 (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12)
> 
> Title            : IS-IS Flood Reflection
> Author(s)        : T. Przygienda, Ed., C. Bowers, Y. Lee, A. Sharma, R. White
> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
>