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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> > 
>