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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ketan,

Thank you for your reply. The updated sentences can be seen in the files below. 

 The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.xml

 The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

We will continue to prepare this document for publication.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Dec 21, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alanna,
> 
> Both sets of your suggested changes look good to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ketan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:33 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Ketan,
> 
> We have an additional question. To clarify the citations, may we update the sentences below?
> 
> a) Section 5.3
> 
> Original:  
> It is RECOMMENDED that an  
> implementation supports [RFC8654] to accommodate a larger size of  
> information within the BGP-LS Attribute.  
> 
> Perhaps:  
> It is RECOMMENDED that implementations support the extended 
> message size for BGP [RFC8654] to accommodate a larger size of 
> information within the BGP-LS Attribute. 
> 
> b) Section 8.2.3
> 
> Original:  
> An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure limiting of  
> maximum size of a BGP-LS UPDATE message to 4096 bytes on a BGP-LS  
> Producer or to allow larger values when they know that [RFC8654] is  
> supported on all BGP-LS Speakers.  
> 
> Perhaps:
> An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure a 4096-byte 
> size limit for a BGP-LS UPDATE message on a BGP-LS  Producer or allow 
> larger values when they know that all BGP-LS Speakers support the 
> extended message size [RFC8654].
> 
> Thanks,
> Alanna
> 
> > On Dec 19, 2023, at 6:30 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Alanna and David.
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 20 Dec, 2023, 2:43 am Alanna Paloma, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Ketan,
> > 
> > As IANA actions are now done, we consider AUTH48 complete:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
> > 
> > Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process.
> > We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> > 
> > > On Dec 19, 2023, at 12:21 PM, David Dong via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>> 
> > > 
> > 
>