[auth48] [IANA #1298358] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9552 <draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17> for your review

[David Dong via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alanna,

These changes are complete; please see:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/

Best regards,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

On Tue Dec 19 17:49:55 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> IANA,
> 
> Please make the following updates to the “BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute
> TLVs” registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-
> parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-
> prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv> to match the edited document at
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html
> 
> 1) Expand “ID” to be “Identifier” in the Description column of code
> point 263.
> 2) Update the section citation from Section 5.2.3 to Section 5.2.3.1
> for code point 264.
> 3) Update the section citation from Section 5.2.3 to Section 5.2.3.2
> for code point 265.
> 4) Add “(deprecated)” to the Description column of code point 513.
> 
> Old:
> TLV Code Point  Description
> Reference
> 263                             Multi-Topology ID
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.2.1]
> 264                             OSPF Route Type
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.3]
> 265                             IP Reachability Information
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.3]
> 513                             BGP-LS Identifier
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.1.4]
> 
> New:
> TLV Code Point  Description
> Reference
> 263                             Multi-Topology Identifier
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.2.1]
> 264                             OSPF Route Type
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.3.1]
> 265                             IP Reachability Information
> [RFC-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.3.2]
> 513                             BGP-LS Identifier (deprecated)  [RFC-
> ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-16, Section 5.2.1.4]
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 10:20 PM, Ketan Talaulikar
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alanna,
> >
> > Thanks for the updates and please consider this email as my approval
> > for publication.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 1:02 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > Hi Ketan,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.xml
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html (comprehensive
> > diff)
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> > changes)
> >
> > 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 AUTH48 status
> > page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication
> > process.
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> > > On Dec 18, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Ketan Talaulikar
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, some additional comments/questions on the diff itself.
> > >
> > > 1) Sec 2.1 replaces "the IGP" with "IGP" - "the IGP" refers to
> > > either OSPF or ISIS. Just wondering if "the" is not really needed
> > > here? There are a few other similar usages in the rest of the
> > > document as well (5.2.2, 5.3.1.4, 5.3.2.1, 5.6).
> > >
> > > 2) Sec 4 there is a change from "max-aged" to "at the max age" -
> > > this change is inappropriate. We can perhaps replace "max-aged"
> > > with "aged out".
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:50 PM Ketan Talaulikar
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below
> > > for responses.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:45 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Ketan,
> > >
> > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> > > necessary)
> > > 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://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) <!--[rfced] In the sentence below, does "that requires CPU-
> > > intensive
> > > or coordinated computations" refer to "Path Computation Element
> > > (CPE)"?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE)
> > > [RFC4655] as
> > >    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths
> > > that
> > >    cross the visibility of more than one TED or that requires CPU-
> > >    intensive or coordinated computations.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE)
> > > [RFC4655] as
> > >    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths
> > > that
> > >    cross the visibility of more than one TED. The PCE also requires
> > > CPU-
> > >    intensive or coordinated computations.
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> The original text is more appropriate. The "cross the
> > > KT> visibility of more than one TED"  and "requires CPU-intensive
> > > KT> or coordinated computations" are the two OR clauses referring
> > > KT> to "the computation of end-to-end TE paths".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see any mentions of "loose-hop-expansion"
> > > in
> > > RFC 3209. We note that the document includes instances of "loose
> > > hop",
> > > but there are no occurrences of "expansion". Please review and let
> > > us
> > > know if the citation requires any updates.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Per-domain path
> > >    computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion"
> > > [RFC3209]
> > >    and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers
> > > (ASBRs)
> > >    using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder
> > > of
> > >    the path.
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> How about the following:
> > > Per-domain path
> > > computation selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border
> > > Routers (ASBRs)
> > > as loose-hops [RFC3209] and using the IGP-computed shortest path
> > > topology for the
> > >  remainder of the path.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) <!--[rfced] May we update the commas in this list as follows?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    (2) a BGP
> > >    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
> > >    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric
> > > or
> > >    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    (2) a BGP
> > >    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
> > >    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix
> > > metric,
> > >    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Tables 3 and 18 have entries for the following:
> > >
> > > 513         | BGP-LS Identifier (deprecated)
> > >
> > > Should the entry be marked as deprecated in the IANA registry
> > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-
> > > parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-
> > > attribute-tlv>?
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6) <!--[rfced] The sentences below read awkwardly with "direct or
> > > static".
> > > Please review and let us know if/how they may be updated.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    This is a mandatory TLV when
> > >    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, direct or static.
> > >    ...
> > >    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
> > >    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for direct
> > >    or static.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    This is a mandatory TLV when
> > >    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, 'Direct', or 'Static
> > >    configuration'.
> > >    ...
> > >    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
> > >    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for
> > > 'Direct'
> > >    or 'Static configuration'.
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Looks better indeed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] There is a slight difference between the sections
> > > referenced in Tables 5 and 18.  The reference in the IANA registry
> > > matches
> > > what appears in Table 18.  Should the section references be updated
> > > for
> > >  consistency?  Perhaps they should match what appears Table 5?
> > >
> > > Table 5 (Section 5.2.3):
> > >   |      264       | OSPF Route Type           |    1     | Section
> > > |
> > >   |                |                           |          | 5.2.3.1
> > > |
> > >   |      265       | IP Reachability           | variable | Section
> > > |
> > >   |                | Information               |          | 5.2.3.2
> > > |
> > >
> > >
> > > Table 18 (Section 9):
> > >     |      264       | OSPF Route Type         | Section 5.2.3
> > > |
> > >     |      265       | IP Reachability         | Section 5.2.3
> > > |
> > >     |                | Information             |
> > > |
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Good catch. Table 5 is indeed correct and the others have wrong
> > > KT> section references for these TLVs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 13 includes a field called
> > > "Route
> > > Type". Should "OSPF" be removed from this text that precedes Figure
> > > 13?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The OSPF Route Type field follows the route types defined in the
> > > OSPF
> > >    protocol and can be one of the following:
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    The Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
> > >    protocol and can be one of the following:
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> We could not fit "OSPF Route Type" in that figure with the 8-
> > > KT> bit width and hence it was abbreviated to "Route Type". We can
> > > KT> use "Route Type" in the text as well to be consistent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 9) <!-- [rfced] The following appears in Table 7:
> > >
> > > | 'T' | Attached Bit | [ISO10589] |
> > >
> > > The following appears in Table 14:
> > >
> > > |  1  | Attached Bit (A-bit) |  RFC 9552 |
> > >
> > > Should Table 7 be updated to reflect 'A' in the Bit column?
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 10) <!--[rfced] To parallel the fields of other figures, should
> > > "Opaque
> > > node attributes" and "Opaque link attributes" be capitalized in
> > > Figures 18 and 23, respectively?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> > > +-+
> > >      //               Opaque node attributes (variable)
> > > //
> > >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> > > +-+
> > >
> > > Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format
> > >
> > >
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > > //                Opaque link attributes (variable)            //
> > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > >
> > > Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 11) <!--[rfced] Should the parentheses around "SRLG" proceeding
> > > "IPv4"
> > > be removed to parallel "SRLG" proceeding "IPv6"?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    In IS-IS, the SRLG
> > >    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 (SRLG)
> > > TLV
> > >    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
> > >    defined in [RFC6119].
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    In IS-IS, the SRLG
> > >    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 SRLG TLV
> > >    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
> > >    defined in [RFC6119].
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> Actually these are the GMPLS-SRLG TLV (for IPv4) (Type 138)
> > > KT> defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139) defined
> > > KT> in [RFC6119].
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 12) <!--[rfced] We note that the "local address" bit listed in RFC
> > > 5340
> > > lists the bit value as "LA-bit". Should "L" (Table 11) be updated
> > > to "LA-bit"?
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Not needed. We can keep as is since they are separate protocols
> > > KT> (BGP-LS and OSPF) and this is a bis RFC.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 13) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Extened IGP Route Tag"
> > > to be
> > > "IGP Extened Route Tag" to reflect the defined code point in IANA's
> > > "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry? If yes, these updates
> > > will
> > > be made in Section 5.3.3.3.
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 14) <!--[rfced] May we update the sentence below to improve
> > > readability?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding
> > > information
> > >    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-
> > > ID
> > >    field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised
> > > in the
> > >    NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-
> > > neutral
> > >    representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding
> > > information
> > >    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-
> > > ID
> > >    field or it shall use new protocol extensions for the protocol
> > > as
> > >    advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there
> > > is no
> > >    protocol-neutral representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 15) <!--[rfced] FYI, we've updated "E-AS-External-Prefix-LSA" to
> > > "E-AS-External-LSA" to match what appears in Section 4.5 of RFC
> > > 8362.
> > > Please let us know of any concerns.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    In the case of OSPFv3, this
> > >    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the
> > > OSPFv3
> > >    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
> > >    Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    In the case of OSPFv3, this
> > >    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the
> > > OSPFv3
> > >    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
> > > LSA,
> > >    and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 16) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for clarity?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B,
> > > that
> > >    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then IS-IS is enabled on
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B,
> > > which
> > >    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then had IS-IS enabled on
> > > them.
> > >    -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> > >
> > > a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be
> > > used
> > > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know
> > > if/how they
> > >   may be made consistent.
> > >
> > > Broadcast LAN / broadcast LAN
> > > Multi-Topology ID / Multi-Topology Identifier
> > > Node Name / node name
> > > Route Reflector / route reflector
> > >
> > > KT> The 2nd one (on the right) for all of the above
> > >
> > >
> > > b) To parallel RFC 7752, may we update the following terms to the
> > > ones
> > >  listed on the left.
> > >
> > > link-local IPv6 address / IPv6 link-local address
> > > path attribute length / Path Attribute Length
> > >
> > > KT> The 2nd ones (on the right) are more appropriate
> > >
> > >
> > > c) FYI, we made the following terms capitalized for consistency to
> > > parallel
> > > other BGP terminology. Please review and let us know if further
> > > updates
> > >  are necessary.
> > >
> > > BGP Attribute
> > > BGP Decision Process
> > > BGP Next-Hop
> > >  -> does this always refer to the attribute?
> > >
> > > KT> Only in sec 5.5 where it correct to capitalize it.
> > >
> > > BGP Speaker
> > >
> > > BGP-LS Attribute
> > > BGP-LS Speaker
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 18) <!-- [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.
> > >
> > > Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
> > > Provider Edge (PE)
> > > RSVP - Fast Reroute (RSVP-FRR)
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Yes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 19) <!-- [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.
> > > -->
> > >
> > > KT> Ack
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > On Dec 15, 2023, at 6:10 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2023/12/15
> > >
> > > 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/rfc9552.xml
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
> > >
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-rfcdiff.html (side by
> > > side)
> > >
> > > Diff of the XML:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-xmldiff1.html
> > >
> > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> > >  diff files of the XML.
> > >
> > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> > >     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.original.v2v3.xml
> > >
> > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> > > updates
> > > only:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.form.xml
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9552 (draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17)
> > >
> > > Title            : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
> > > Engineering Information Using BGP
> > > Author(s)        : K. Talaulikar, Ed.
> > > WG Chair(s)      : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas
> > >
> > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> > >
> > >
> >