Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9502 <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16> for your review

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

please find the updated XML attached.

thanks,
Peter


On 01/11/2023 14:49, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly.
> 
> The only open question is the one below. The xml file is available in the list of files below. Thank you for offering to make the edits. Once you make the changes, you may send the updated XML file back to us by email. We’ll then review and let you know if we have any further questions.
> 
>>> 3) Regarding:
>>>>> 8) <!-- [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.
>>>>> Flex-Algorithm
>>>>> Flex Algorithm
>>>>> flex-algo
>>>>> Flexible Algorithm
>>>>
>>>> looking at rfc9350, it uses:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Flex-Algorithm -  when referring to a numeric identifier in the range 128-255
>>>>
>>>> 1) "Flexible Algorithm"  - everywhere else
>>>>
>>>> Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#section-3
>>> Before we update, we’d like to clarify that we understand correctly. Should we do the following?
>>> a) Leave "Flex-Algorithm” in the following sentences that mention the range 128-255 (some of these sentences appear more than once in the document). Or are there more instances that should remain "Flex-Algorithm”? Unless the range is specifically mentioned in the text, it is difficult for us to determine if it is referring to the numeric identifier in the range 128-225.
>>>   Algorithms outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255) MUST be ignored
>>>   by the receiver.
>>>   If the Algorithms in the IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV
>>>   are outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255),
>>>   If the Algorithms in the OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-
>>>   TLV are outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255),
>>
>> ##PP3
>> if you give me an XML source, I can make the edits. But let's do that as the very last thing after all other issues are resolved.
> 
> 
> Updated XML file:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.xml
> 
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive Diffs:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/st
> 
>> On Oct 30, 2023, at 4:51 AM, Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sarah,
>>
>> please see inline (##PP3):
>>
>> On 27/10/2023 22:27, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
>>> Hi Peter, Acee, and Ron,
>>> Ron, thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502).
>>> Peter and Acee, thank you for responding to our questions. We have updated the document accordingly. We have a few followup questions/comments:
>>> 1) Regarding:
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, should the D-flag point to the "up/down bit"
>>>>> as was done in RFC 9352?  In addition, should Reserved be defined?
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>                   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>>>>>                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>                  |D|  Reserved   |
>>>>>                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>>        D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
>>>>>        D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
>>>>>        Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
>>>>>        level-2.  This is to prevent looping.
>>>>>>  From RFC 9352:
>>>>> D-flag: "up/down bit" as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5305].
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> please update as proposed.
>>> FYI - We have copied the text from RFC 9352 to describe the D-flag and removed the hyphen in “level-1” and “level-2” to match RFC 9352. Please review the text closely and let us know if further updates are needed.
>>> Please review Perhaps A and Perhaps B below and determine if, to define “Reserved”, you would like to match the text used to define “Reserved” in Section 6.3. Or is there another way you would like to define it?
>>> Original:
>>> D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
>>> D bit MUST be set. Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
>>> Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
>>> level-2. This is to prevent looping.
>>> Perhaps A:
>>> D-flag: The D-flag is described as the "up/down bit" in Section 4.1
>>> of [RFC5305]. When the Prefix is leaked from level 2 to level 1, the
>>> D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear. Prefixes
>>> with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level 1 to level 2.
>>> This is to prevent looping.
>>> The remaining bits: Are reserved for future use. They MUST be
>>> set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
>>
>> ##PP3
>> above is good.
>>
>>> Perhaps B:
>>> D-flag: The D-flag is described as the "up/down bit" in Section 4.1
>>> of [RFC5305]. When the Prefix is leaked from level 2 to level 1, the
>>> D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear. Prefixes
>>> with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level 1 to level 2.
>>> This is to prevent looping.
>>> Reserved: The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They
>>> MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
>>> receipt [RFC9352].
>>> 2) Regarding:
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] To match the rest of the list, should a definition for
>>>>> "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)" be included?
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> yes, please add it.
>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> Algorithm (1 octet):  Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.
>>>>> Prefix Len (1 octet):  Prefix length measured in bits.
>>>>> Prefix (variable length):  Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.
>>>>> Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet):  Number of octets used by sub-TLVs
>>>>> Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)
>>>>> —>
>>> Please provide the definition that you would like to include for "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)”.
>>
>> ##PP3
>> sorry I misunderstood, there is no definition needed. All we need to say is:
>>
>> "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)”.
>>
>>
>>> 3) Regarding:
>>>>> 8) <!-- [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.
>>>>> Flex-Algorithm
>>>>> Flex Algorithm
>>>>> flex-algo
>>>>> Flexible Algorithm
>>>>
>>>> looking at rfc9350, it uses:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Flex-Algorithm -  when referring to a numeric identifier in the range 128-255
>>>>
>>>> 1) "Flexible Algorithm"  - everywhere else
>>>>
>>>> Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#section-3
>>> Before we update, we’d like to clarify that we understand correctly. Should we do the following?
>>> a) Leave "Flex-Algorithm” in the following sentences that mention the range 128-255 (some of these sentences appear more than once in the document). Or are there more instances that should remain "Flex-Algorithm”? Unless the range is specifically mentioned in the text, it is difficult for us to determine if it is referring to the numeric identifier in the range 128-225.
>>>   Algorithms outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255) MUST be ignored
>>>   by the receiver.
>>>   If the Algorithms in the IS-IS IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV
>>>   are outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255),
>>>   If the Algorithms in the OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-
>>>   TLV are outside the Flex-Algorithm range (128-255),
>>
>> ##PP3
>> if you give me an XML source, I can make the edits. But let's do that as the very last thing after all other issues are resolved.
>>
>>
>>> b) Update "Flex-Algorithm”, "Flex Algorithm”, and "flex-algo” to "Flexible Algorithm” everywhere else.
>>> In addition, we also have the following related questions:
>>> a) Should any changes should be made to the current document title, which includes both "Flexible Algorithms” and "Flex-Algorithm”?
>>> Current:
>>> IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) in IP Networks
>>
>> ##PP3
>> Please update to:
>>
>> "IGP Flexible Algorithm In IP Networks"
>>
>>> b) If we update as proposed above, please note that we will recast sentences like the following that currently include "Flex-algorithm-specific” to avoid awkward hyphenation.
>>
>> ##PP3
>> yes please.
>>
>>> Current:
>>> Traffic for SR-MPLS will be forwarded based on Flex-algorithm-specific SR SIDs.
>>> Update to:
>>> Traffic for SR-MPLS will be forwarded based on SR SIDs that are specific to a Flexible Algorithm.
>>
>> ##PP3
>> Ack.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>> Updated XML file:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.xml
>>> Updated output files:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf
>>> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-auth48diff.html
>>> Comprehensive Diffs:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version.
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/st
>>>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:45 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:46 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]; William Britto A J <[e-mail]>; Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; Parag Kaneriya <[e-mail]>; Rajesh M <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; John Scudder <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9502 <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16> for your review
>>>>
>>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> please see inline (##PP):
>>>>
>>>> On 26/10/2023 01:05, [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] For clarity, should the D-flag point to the "up/down bit"
>>>>> as was done in RFC 9352?  In addition, should Reserved be defined?
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>>>>>                     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>                     |D|  Reserved   |
>>>>>                     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>
>>>>>           D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
>>>>>           D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
>>>>>           Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
>>>>>           level-2.  This is to prevent looping.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  From RFC 9352:
>>>>>     D-flag: "up/down bit" as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5305].
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> please update as proposed.
>>>>
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] To match the rest of the list, should a definition for
>>>>> "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)" be included?
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> yes, please add it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>     Algorithm (1 octet):  Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Prefix Len (1 octet):  Prefix length measured in bits.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Prefix (variable length):  Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet):  Number of octets used by
>>>>> sub-TLVs
>>>>>
>>>>>     Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we moved the ruler over one space, so
>>>>> the numbers appear over the hyphens.  Please let us know if any
>>>>> corrections are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated Figure 5:
>>>>>       0                   1                   2                   3
>>>>>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>      |              Type             |             Length            |
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>      |       MT-ID   |  Algorithm    |     Flags     |     Reserved  |
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>      |                          Metric                               |
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated Figure 6:
>>>>>       0                   1                   2                   3
>>>>>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>      |              Type             |             Length            |
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>>      |                     Forwarding Address                        |
>>>>>      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
>>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> Ack.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify how "and the ASBR is reachable in"
>>>>> relates to the rest of the sentence. Would the following text provide
>>>>> clarity while retaining the original meaning?
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> each ASBR may be reachable in no/some/all flex-algorithms that ABR participates in. ABR only advertises ASBR (including IPFAAM Sub-TLVs) in the particular flex-algorithm if (a) ABR participates in it AND (b) ASBR is reachable in it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>>>>>     reachability advertisement between areas for every IP Flex-Algorithm
>>>>>     in which it participates and the ASBR is reachable in. >
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>     An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>>>>>     reachability advertisement between the areas for every IP
>>>>>     Flex-Algorithm it participates in and the ASBR it is reachable in.
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> I'm fine with the change.
>>>>
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Note that we lowercased n and y to match what appears
>>>>> in the IANA registry.  Please let us know any objections.
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> no objection.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Current in Table 3:
>>>>>
>>>>>   IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
>>>>> +-=====+-=====+-=====+-=======+-
>>>>> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
>>>>> ...
>>>>> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the Description to match what appears
>>>>> in the IANA registry (see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml*isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2do_uGbr_w$ ).
>>>>> Please let us know if any corrections are needed.
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> Ack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>     Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>     Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM)
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] It appears as though there are more recent versions of
>>>>> this document available.  Is the reference to Release 16.4.0 correct
>>>>> or should the reference be updated to point to a more recent version?
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> please use the latest version.
>>>>
>>>>> See https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2donngp9DU$ .
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>     [TS.23.501-3GPP]
>>>>>                3GPP, "System Architecture for 5G System", Release 16.4.0,
>>>>>                3GPP TS 23.501, March 2020.
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) <!-- [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.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Flex-Algorithm
>>>>>     Flex Algorithm
>>>>>     flex-algo
>>>>>     Flexible Algorithm
>>>>
>>>> looking at rfc9350, it uses:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Flex-Algorithm -  when referring to a numeric identifier in the range
>>>> 128-255
>>>>
>>>> 1) "Flexible Algorithm"  - everywhere else
>>>>
>>>> Please see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html*section-3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2dokQlAz8M$
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Should "IP flex-algo prefixes" be "IP Flex-Algorithm Prefixes"?
>>>>> Please let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> please replace with "IP Algorithm Prefixes"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Please confirm that "bit E" is desired, as opposed to "E bit"
>>>>> (similar to "D bit" and "S bit").
>>>>>
>>>>>     bit E -> E bit
>>>>
>>>> ##
>>>> please use "* bit" consistently for all bits
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> d) It is unclear if "sub-TLV" (uncapitalized) is used for the generic
>>>>> noun and "Sub-TLV" (capitalized) is used for the proper noun?
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> indeed, that is the intention.
>>>> Please feel free to fix any that do  not match that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please review and
>>>>> let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples:
>>>>> the sub-TLV space
>>>>> this Sub-TLV
>>>>> IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
>>>>> Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV IPFAAM Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms and their expansions: We have added expansions
>>>>> for abbreviations upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").  Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure
>>>>> correctness.
>>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> ##PP
>>>> looks correct.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10) <!-- [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!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2dohsDvcgw$ >
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2023, at 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated 2023/10/25
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doKM66Tmo$ ).
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 +IBM https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2do5weQ34A$ ).
>>>>>
>>>>> *  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!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doJfmBK1c$ >.
>>>>>
>>>>> *  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 +IBg-REPLY ALL+IBk 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2dokSsrSPc$
>>>>>
>>>>>       *  The archive itself:
>>>>>          https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doopQMVn0$
>>>>>
>>>>>       *  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
>>>>>   +IBQ OR +IBQ
>>>>> 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 +IBg-REPLY ALL+IBk,
>>>>> 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/rfc9502.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doOYjzZL8$
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doK4Dhd_Y$
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2dou5Bi1dY$
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doI8N6E6E$
>>>>>
>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2do85dChTA$
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doHn_YxBQ$ (side by side)
>>>>>
>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doWCn_Ka4$
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/rfc9502.original.v2v3.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2dos_00VQ4$
>>>>>
>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>> only:
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.form.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2do8_G9gyM$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>
>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BnouDGGGrp8VHEPgZraoewBR-Ny9nlNCFia3W4fuAqojECEfJttnxeJ8iq74OL62BDu_-2doHErSE6w$
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC9502 (draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16)
>>>>>
>>>>> Title            : IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks
>>>>> Author(s)        : W. Britto, S. Hegde, P. Kaneriya, R. Shetty, R. Bonica, P. Psenak
>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
>