Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your review

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lynne,

you have my approval as well.

thanks,
Peter


On 29/09/2023 18:07, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> Hi, Les.
> 
> Thanks for the email.  We have noted your approval (set to 9/27/2023, per your previous email) on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9479
> 
> Thanks again for helping us with AUTH48!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Lynne -
>>
>> Thanx for the clarification.
>> I still prefer no table names - I can live with the format limitations.
>>
>>    Les
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 1:49 PM
>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Peter
>>> Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lsr-
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; auth48archive@rfc-
>>> editor.org
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your
>>> review
>>>
>>> Hi, Les.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the clarification re. question 14)b) and the erratum text.
>>>
>>> As for the placement of the "Table X" lines in the PDF and HTML files, this is a
>>> feature of xml2rfc v3, and we're not able to center the "Table X" lines in PDF or
>>> HTML.
>>>
>>> We know that the topic of table titles in this document was covered earlier --
>>> not to use any for this document -- but if the tables had titles, this effect would
>>> not be so jarring in the PDF and HTML files.
>>>
>>> Please let us know what you think; we'll wait to hear from you again before
>>> noting your approval.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patience!
>>>
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Lynne -
>>>>
>>>> I have checked all of the additional changes - they have all been completed to
>>> my satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> One minor formatting request -  the "Table X" titles associated with each
>>> table appear centered in the .txt file - but are left aligned (at the table
>>> boundary) in the PDF and HTML files.
>>>> Is it possible to have them centered in the PDF/HTML files as well?
>>>>
>>>> In regards to Question 14b - sorry for overlooking that.
>>>> When I began work on the bis version, I noted that the Errata that had been
>>> filed had a cut and paste error - there actually were no changes required to
>>> Section 6.2 - but I had mistakenly cut and pasted the changes for Section 4.2 a
>>> second time as if they should also be applied to Section 6.2.
>>>> No one noticed this when discussing the Errata - and since the Errata is
>>> formally marked as rejected (in favor of doing a bis version of the RFC) I saw
>>> no reason to correct the already rejected Errata.
>>>>
>>>> Bravo to you for noticing this - but this is why there are no changes to
>>> Section 6.2. 😊
>>>>
>>>> Other than the minor format correction mentioned above, this latest version
>>> has my approval.
>>>> Thanx for all that you do.
>>>>
>>>>   Les
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:42 PM
>>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>>> <[e-mail]>;
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lsr-
>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for
>>> your
>>>>> review
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Les and Acee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the emails.  Les, thank you for your thorough review and
>>> replies
>>>>> to our questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Les, we took a look at the five most recent RFCs that obsolete other RFCs
>>>>> (RFCs 9399, 9411, 9436, 9438, and 9457) and found that in all five cases
>>> the
>>>>> RFC or RFCs being obsoleted were listed under Informative References. As
>>> you
>>>>> noted below, Informative Reference is indeed the appropriate choice here as
>>>>> well, and we've moved the listing accordingly.  Apologies for any confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please advise re. our question 14)b):
>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) We see that the "NEW" text for Section 4.2 was applied per
>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630> but the "NEW" text for
>>>>>>> Section 6.2 was not.  Is this as desired (i.e., does "subject to the
>>>>>>> restrictions specified in Section 4.2" in the first paragraph of
>>>>>>> Section 6.2 handle the erratum information adequately?)? -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.txt
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.pdf
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.xml
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-diff.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-auth48diff.html
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff2.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect
>>> or
>>>>> we missed anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2023, at 8:11 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acee -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree - but at most this is only informational.
>>>>>> The discussion of what changed from RFC 8919 is informative from a
>>>>> historical perspective - and may be useful to implementors who wrote code
>>>>> based on RFC 8919 and want to check whether they need to make any
>>>>> changes to be conformant to RFC 9479, but RFC 9479 should stand on its
>>>>> own. If an implementor never knew of the existence of RFC 8919 it should
>>> not
>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe Informative Reference is the appropriate choice here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is common practice to reference the obsoleted draft in the
>>>>> “Differences from RFCxxxx” text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Acee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 8:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And one other issue, highlighted in the review of RFC8920bis (to become
>>>>> RFC9492)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [SEGMENT-ROUTING]
>>>>>>             Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
>>>>>>             A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
>>>>>>             RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
>>>>>>             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Need to be changed to use [RFC9256].
>>>>>> The name [SEGMENT_ROUTING] occurs because when RFC 8919 was
>>>>> published RFC9256 did not exist - it was still in draft form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 7:50 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One correction to my responses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that this document obsoletes RFC8919, it seems inappropriate to
>>>>> include RFC 8919 as a reference at all.
>>>>>> At a minimum, it seems odd to have an obsoleted document as a
>>> Normative
>>>>> Reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the correct policy here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Sorry for missing this earlier)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 3:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find my responses to your questions inline below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:59 PM
>>>>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
>>> (ppsenak)
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for
>>>>> your
>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>>> necessary)
>>>>>>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that because the XML file for this document
>>>>>>> was submitted in "prepped" format, we created a "nonprepped" copy of
>>>>>>> the file in order to edit the document properly.  This does not
>>>>>>> impact the document's text but resulted in many changes to the XML
>>>>>>> code (as can be viewed in the "xmldiff" files that will be provided
>>>>>>> when this document moves to the AUTH48 state). -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] Understood. Out of an abundance of caution I started with the XML
>>>>> available from Datatracker for RFC 8919. It had a number of
>>> "strangenesses"
>>>>> (at least to me) - but I chose not to modify them as I wanted the
>>> text/format
>>>>> to be as close as possible to RFC 8919.
>>>>>> I wish there had been a more "up to date" version of the XML for me to
>>> start
>>>>> with - but there was not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>>> the
>>>>>>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] None added.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2:  Please confirm that the citation for
>>>>>>> RFC 7855 ("Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem
>>>>>>> Statement and Requirements") is correct and will be clear to readers.
>>>>>>> We are unsure if "Source Packet Routing" and "Segment Routing" mean
>>> the
>>>>>>> same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] It is fine as is. Segment Routing is an instance of the more general
>>>>> concept of "Source Packet Routing".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> [RFC7855] discusses use cases and requirements for Segment Routing
>>>>>>> (SR). -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and subsequent:  We see that the instances of
>>>>>>> "TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223" in RFC 8919 have been replaced
>>>>>>> by "TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information" in running text in this
>>>>>>> document.  In some places, the new text reads oddly.  Should "TLVs
>>>>>>> Advertising Neighbor Information" be "TLVs advertising neighbor
>>>>>>> information", as is done in the text on
>>>>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/>?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] I have looked at the use cases - I think the text is fine as is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Existing advertisements used in support of RSVP-TE include sub-TLVs
>>>>>>> for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information and TLVs for Shared Risk
>>>>>>> Link Group (SRLG) advertisement.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 1)  Application-Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV for TLVs Advertising
>>>>>>>    Neighbor Information (defined in Section 4.2).
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> A new sub-TLV for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information is defined
>>>>>>> that supports specification of the applications and application-
>>>>>>> specific attribute values.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> When the L-flag is set in the Application Identifier Bit Mask, all of
>>>>>>> the applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the legacy
>>>>>>> advertisements for the corresponding link found in TLVs Advertising
>>>>>>> Neighbor Information. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Tables 1 and 5: We have changed "TE Default Metric" to
>>>>>>> "TE Default metric" per RFC 5305. We will ask that IANA make this
>>>>>>> capitalization consistent in its registies prior to publication.
>>>>>>> Please let us know of any objections. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] No objection
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We see that Table 1 has a title but Tables 2 through 7
>>>>>>> do not.  Would you like all of the tables to have titles?  If yes,
>>>>>>> please provide them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] Honestly, I think there is no need for a title for any of the tables - it is
>>>>> the table format that is useful for presentation.
>>>>>> So my choice would be to remove the title for Table I.
>>>>>> If you insist, I can come up with names for the other tables, but I don’t
>>> think
>>>>> they add any value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising
>>>>>>>         Neighbor Information
>>>>>>> Table 2
>>>>>>> Table 3
>>>>>>> Table 4
>>>>>>> Table 5
>>>>>>> Table 6
>>>>>>> Table 7 -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1:  Should the section title be "Application
>>>>>>> Identifier Bit Masks" or "Application Identifier Bit Mask Types"?
>>>>>>> We ask because we see "two bit masks" in the sentence that follows,
>>>>>>> as well as "zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks" elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] Title is fine as is.
>>>>>> Application Identifier Bit Masks is the name of the set of fields (SABM
>>>>> Length, UDABM Length, SABM bit mask, UDABM bit mask) which are
>>> encoded
>>>>> in the ASLA sub-TLV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> 4.1.  Application Identifier Bit Mask -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.2 and 4.3:  We cannot tell whether "SABM" in
>>>>>>> these sentences refers to the SABM field or the SABM Length field.
>>>>>>> Will these sentences be clear to readers, or should "SABM or UDABM
>>>>>>> Length" be "SABM Length or UDABM Length"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] It is probably clearer to say "SABM Length or UDABM length"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is
>>>>>>> greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all
>>>>>>> applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the link attribute
>>>>>>> advertisements in the sub-TLV.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is
>>>>>>> greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all
>>>>>>> applications specified in the bit mask MUST use SRLG advertisements
>>>>>>> in the Application-Specific SRLG TLV. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2:  For ease of the reader, should "LSP" be
>>>>>>> defined as "Label-Switched Path" per RFC 3209 or "Link State Protocol
>>>>>>> Data Unit" per RFC 5305?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] "Link State Protocol Data Unit"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> In cases where conflicting values for the same
>>>>>>> application/attribute/link are advertised, the first advertisement
>>>>>>> received in the lowest-numbered LSP MUST be used, and subsequent
>>>>>>> advertisements of the same attribute MUST be ignored. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3:  As it appears that "a single TLV" refers
>>>>>>> to the new Application-Specific SRLG TLV and not to some other type
>>>>>>> of TLV, we changed "a single TLV" to "this new single TLV" here.
>>>>>>> If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] This is fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
>>>>>>> A new TLV is defined to advertise application-specific SRLGs for a
>>>>>>> given link.  Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 [RFC5307]
>>>>>>> and TLV 139 [RFC6119], a single TLV provides support for IPv4, IPv6,
>>>>>>> and unnumbered identifiers for a link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently:
>>>>>>> Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 [RFC5307]
>>>>>>> and TLV 139 [RFC6119], this new single TLV provides support for IPv4,
>>>>>>> IPv6, and unnumbered identifiers for a link. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Sections 5 and 6:  We changed lowercased instances of
>>>>>>> "application-specific link attribute(s)" to "ASLA(s)" per the
>>>>>>> expansion provided in Section 4.  Please review, and let us know any
>>>>>>> objections. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] No objection
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Sections 5 and subsequent:  The following instances of
>>>>>>> "LFA" in these sentences read oddly.  Should they be plural or
>>>>>>> perhaps "LFA Policy"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] "LFA" is correct. This refers to the application types defined in
>>> Section
>>>>> 4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> In the case of LFA, the advertisement of application-specific link
>>>>>>> attributes does not indicate enablement of LFA on that link.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> *  The application is SR Policy or LFA, and RSVP-TE is not deployed
>>>>>>>   anywhere in the network.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *  The application is SR Policy or LFA, RSVP-TE is deployed in the
>>>>>>>   network, and both the set of links on which SR Policy and/or LFA
>>>>>>>   advertisements are required and the attribute values used by SR
>>>>>>>   Policy and/or LFA on all such links are fully congruent with the
>>>>>>>   links and attribute values used by RSVP-TE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under the conditions defined above, implementations that support the
>>>>>>> extensions defined in this document have the choice of using legacy
>>>>>>> advertisements or application-specific advertisements in support of
>>>>>>> SR Policy and/or LFA.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Existing deployments of RSVP-TE, SR Policy, and/or LFA utilize the
>>>>>>> legacy advertisements listed in Section 3. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Per previous text in this document, we
>>>>>>> changed "advertisement of link attribute advertisements" to
>>>>>>> "advertisement of link attributes".  If this is incorrect, please
>>>>>>> provide alternative text.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] This is fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> In the presence of
>>>>>>> an application where the advertisement of link attribute
>>>>>>> advertisements is used to infer the enablement of an application on
>>>>>>> that link (e.g., RSVP-TE), the absence of the application identifier
>>>>>>> leaves ambiguous whether that application is enabled on such a link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently:
>>>>>>> In the presence of
>>>>>>> an application where the advertisement of link attributes is used to
>>>>>>> infer the enablement of an application on that link (e.g., RSVP-TE),
>>>>>>> the absence of the application identifier leaves ambiguous whether
>>>>>>> that application is enabled on such a link. -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 9:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) We could not locate the discussion in question via the information
>>>>>>> in the current text.  Searching by thread on
>>>>>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/> for
>>>>>>> "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920" directed us to
>>>>>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/>, which provides an
>>>>>>> "Enter list name or search query..." box, which did not yield the
>>>>>>> desired information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] The removal of the URL was done based on feedback during IESG
>>>>> review. IT was commented that any such URL might not be valid
>>> indefinitely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I put "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920" into the search bar at
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/ I do find the relevant thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, when looking at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630>
>>>>>>> (the erratum page for RFC 8919), we found
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_15rAwElfpGLDRxqjUuUJHiGdrQ/
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> Would pointing to this link instead of 'the thread "Proposed Errata
>>>>>>> for RFCs 8919/8920"' be acceptable?  If not, please provide a URL
>>>>>>> that can be listed as a good starting point for readers interested in
>>>>>>> this information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
>>>>>>> Discussion within the LSR WG indicated that there was confusion
>>>>>>> regarding the use of ASLA advertisements that had a zero length SABM/
>>>>>>> UDABM.  The discussion can be seen by searching the LSR WG mailing
>>>>>>> list archives for the thread "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920"
>>>>>>> starting on 15 June 2021.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possibly:
>>>>>>> Discussion within the LSR WG indicated that there was confusion
>>>>>>> regarding the use of ASLA advertisements that had a zero-length SABM/
>>>>>>> UDABM.  The discussion can be seen on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_15rAwElfpGLDRxqjUuUJHiGdrQ/
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) We see that the "NEW" text for Section 4.2 was applied per
>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630> but the "NEW" text for
>>>>>>> Section 6.2 was not.  Is this as desired (i.e., does "subject to the
>>>>>>> restrictions specified in Section 4.2" in the first paragraph of
>>>>>>> Section 6.2 handle the erratum information adequately?)? -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] We added RFC 8919 to the list of Normative References.
>>>>>>> Please let us know if it should be an Informative Reference instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] Fine as a normative reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>>>>>>> online Style Guide at
>>>>>>> <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. -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] No changes are needed that I can see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
>>>>>>> this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [LES:] Please use lower case "legacy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legacy sub-TLV / legacy sub-TLV (text in Section 4.2) -->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb/ap
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>>>>> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am fine with the changes introduced with the following exceptions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)Section 6.3.3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "while continuing to use legacy advertisements"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please change this to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "while continuing to advertise legacy advertisements"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is to indicate that both forms need to be advertised(sic).
>>>>>> The last sentence in the paragraph clearly states what is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2)Section 7.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have changed column #2 to be "Name" - but the corresponding
>>> registry
>>>>> uses the original term "Description".
>>>>>> Please revert this change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3)Section 7.5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You changed the title to "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV
>>>>> Registry (for TLV 238)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This does not match the title in the registry:
>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-
>>>>> codepoints.xhtml#tlv-238
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:57 PM
>>>>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
>>> (ppsenak)
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your
>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Updated 2023/09/11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/rfc9479.xml
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-diff.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff1.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9479
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> RFC9479 (draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Title            : IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes
>>>>>>> Author(s)        : L. Ginsberg, P. Psenak, S. Previdi, W. Henderickx, J. Drake
>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 
>