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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Madison -

I am just back from vacation today and will be looking at this as well as RFC8919 bis shortly.
Thanx for your patience.

     Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Madison Church <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:05 AM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your
> review
> 
> 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