Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9353 <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13> for your review

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 3:02 AM Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Megan,
>
> > On Jan 5, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Acee and Dhruv and *ADs,
> >
> > *ADs - We would appreciate further guidance on the following question:
>
> I think it is fine as it is in the current RFC9353.txt since it says that
> MD5 is obsoleted in the very next sentence.
>
>     As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], a PCEP speaker MUST
>     support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is needed
>     to indicate support. However, as noted in [RFC6952], TCP MD5 has
>     been obsoleted by TCP-AO [RFC5925] because of security concerns.
>
>
Dhruv: I agree with Acee and take back my suggested options. The current
text is fine!

It was the title of RFC 2385 [Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option] that threw me off, and I assumed it to be a document
specific to BGP only! RFC 5440 PCEP references RFC 2385 in Section 10.2 and
thus it is the correct reference to use! I apologize for the noise and
wasting everyone's precious time!
Thanks!
Dhruv

Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> >
> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC 5925. Would the
> following update be agreeable?  We note that RFC 5925 is already in the
> References section.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
> >>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is needed
> >>   to indicate support.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
> >>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is needed
> >>   to indicate support.  (Note that RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC
> >>   5925.)
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: I think the reference RFC2385 itself needs to change. I see two
> option, we could either -
> >>
> >> A: Not using any reference, I see published RFCs which include the term
> "MD5" without a reference as it is quite well-known.
> >> B: Use the reference as RFC 1321 (can also say that is obsoleted by RFC
> 5925)
> >>
> >> I think it should be “a PCEP speaker” rather than “an PCEP speaker
> since neither “P” or “Path” would be preceded by “an”.
> >> I don’t feel strongly about the reference – FBOW MD5 is deployed.
> Either option is fine with me stating that it has been
> >> obsoleted.
> >>
> >> I would like to know the opinion of the RFC editor team and others in
> CC!
> >
> > [rfced] *ADs - any suggestions for the authors on how to proceed with
> the above issue?
> >
> > Acee and Dhruv,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies and guidance.  We have updated as suggested.
> Please review the updated document carefully as we do not make changes once
> the document is published.  Note that the addition of “RFC Publisher” to
> reference entries is due to a current tools issue and will be removed prior
> to publication.
> >
> > FYI - You will see our submitted change to the IANA registry title go by
> in a separate message.
> >
> >  The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.txt
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-rfcdiff.html
> (comprehensive rfcdiff)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
> >
> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9353
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mf
> >
> >> On Jan 2, 2023, at 11:05 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi RFC Editor, Dhruv,
> >>
> >> I concur with Dhruv on thanking the RFC Editors for the excellent
> work!!!
> >>
> >> See a couple inlines.
> >>
> >> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> >> Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 11:28 PM
> >> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9353
> <draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13> for your review
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Happy New Year! Thanks for making the document better with your
> excellent work. See inline...
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 1:43 AM <[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] Please note that the title of the document has been
> updated as follows:
> >>
> >> a) Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 (“RFC
> >> Style Guide”). Please review.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in PCE discovery
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> IGP Extension for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> >> (PCEP) Security Capability Support in PCE Discovery (PCED)
> >>
> >> Dhruv: This is fine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> b) The short title (in the running header of the PDF version) has been
> updated.  Please review and let us know any objections.
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> IGP Extension: PCEP Security in PCED
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: No objection.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Can't think of any other keywords
> >>
> >>
> >> 3) <!-- [rfced]  Please review our suggested rephrase of the following
> text. Does it retain your intended meaning?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
> >> (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a
> server participating in the IGP, its presence and path computation
> capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >> When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
> >> (LSR) or a server participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
> its
> >> presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using IGP
> >> flooding. -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: I am happy with the rephrasing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 4) <!--[rfced] Please review the updates we have made to the following
> >>     text (to avoid awkward hyphenation) to ensure the changes have
> >>     retained your intended meaning.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> As described in [RFC5440], Path Computation Element Communication
> >> Protocol (PCEP) communication privacy and integrity are important
> >> issues, as an attacker that intercepts a PCEP message could obtain
> >> sensitive information related to computed paths and resources.
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> As described in RFC 5440, privacy and
> >> integrity are important issues for communication using the Path
> >> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP); an attacker that
> >> intercepts a PCEP message could obtain sensitive information related
> >> to computed paths and resources.
> >>
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: It is fine; just s/RFC 5440/[RFC5440]/ and I noticed that in the
> link that is exactly what you have already :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] We have updated this sentence to include TCP-AO as a
> >>     method to advertise PCEP security to make the text parallel to
> >>     the Abstract. Please let us know any objections.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
> >> capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively.
> >> However, these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP security
> >> (e.g., TLS) support capability.
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
> >> capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS, respectively.
> >> However, these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP security
> >> (e.g., TLS and TCP-AO) support capability. -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Sure!
> >>
> >>
> >> 6) <!--[rfced] Is text missing here?  "...the IS-IS" what?  Protocol?
> >>     Sub-TLVs?  Please clarify.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> [RFC5089] states that the IS-IS uses the same registry as OSPF.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Perhaps -
> >>
> >> [RFC5089] states that the IS-IS PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV uses the
> >> same registry as OSPF.
> >>
> >> Dhruv’s suggested text is fine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 7) <!--[rfced] Please review the following text for clarity.  We were
> >>     unsure about the last sentence when comparing it with the IANA
> >>     actions in the IANA Considerations section and RFC 8306.  If the
> >>     suggested text is incorrect, please provide another rephrasing.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> This document updates [RFC8306] where it uses the term "OSPF PCE
> >> Capability Flag" and request assignment from OSPF Parameters registry
> >> with "PCE Capability Flag" and the IGP Parameters registry.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >> This document also updates [RFC8306] by changing the term "OSPF PCE
> >> Capability Flag" to read as "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability
> >> Flags" and to note the corresponding registry now exits in the
> >>
> >>
> >> "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Happy with the rephrasing!
> >>
> >> Please change “exits” to “exists”.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 8) <!--[rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
> >>     should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
> >>     for content that is semantically less important or tangential to
> >>     the content that surrounds it"
> >>     (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
> >>
> >> Original (1):
> >> Note that [RFC5557] uses the term "OSPF registry" instead of the "IGP
> >> registry" whereas [RFC8623] and [RFC9168] uses the term "OSPF
> >> Parameters" instead of "IGP Parameters".
> >>
> >> Original (2):
> >> Note that the PCEP Open message exchange is another way to discover
> >> PCE capabilities information, but in this instance, the TCP security
> >> related key parameters need to be known before the PCEP session is
> >> established and the PCEP Open messages are exchanged.  Thus, the use
> >> of the PCE Discovery and capabilities advertisement of the IGP needs
> >> to be leveraged. -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Happy to use <aside> element in the xml!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 9) <!--[rfced] The Web Portion of the RFC Style Guide
> >>     (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/) recommends using
> >>     the abbreviated form of an abbreviation after it has been
> >>     introduced. We will implement this style for each of the
> >>     following abbreviations unless we hear objection.
> >>
> >> PCE Discovery (PCED)
> >> TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
> >> Master Key Tuple (MKT) -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: No objection
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 10) <!--[rfced] The following text is difficult to follow with regard
> to subject/verb agreement.  Would either of the following suggestions work?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> Thus, the use of the PCE discovery and capabilities
> >> advertisement of the IGP needs to be leveraged.
> >>
> >> Perhaps A:
> >> Thus, PCE discovery and capabilities
> >> advertisement of the IGP need to be leveraged.
> >>
> >> Perhaps B:
> >> Thus, the leveraging of PCE discovery and capabilities
> >> advertisement of the IGP is necessary.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: A is fine with me!
> >>
> >> I’d suggest:
> >>     Thus, the IGP advertisement and flooding mechanisms need to be
> >>     leveraged for PCE discovery and capabilities advertisement.
> >>
> >> However, I don’t feel that strongly and would be happy with A.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 11) <!--[rfced] We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the
> YANG
> >> Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred.
> >> We have updated the text to use these forms.  Please review.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> The YANG model for PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports PCEP
> >> security parameters (key, key chain, and TLS).
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> The YANG module for PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports PCEP
> >> security parameters (key, key chain, and TLS). -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Ack
> >>
> >>
> >> 12) <!--[rfced] We suggest rephrasing this sentence for the ease of the
> >>     reader. Does the following suggestion retain your intended
> >>     meaning?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> Thus, before advertising the PCEP security parameters, using the
> >> mechanism described in this document, the IGP MUST be known to provide
> >> authentication and integrity for the PCED TLV using the mechanisms
> >> defined in [RFC5304], [RFC5310] or [RFC5709].
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >> Thus, before advertising the PCEP security parameters by using the
> >> mechanism described in this document, the IGP MUST be known to provide
> >> authentication and integrity for the PCED TLV using the mechanisms
> >> defined in [RFC5304], [RFC5310], or [RFC5709]. -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: It does! Happy with the rephrase!
> >>
> >>
> >> 13) <!--[rfced] Should the title change for the following IANA registry?
> >>     We note that RFC 5086 expanded PCED on first use and capped
> >>     "sub-" when in a title.  If these changes are agreeable, we will
> >>     communicate them to IANA during AUTH48 and update the text of
> >>     this document accordingly.  See:
> >>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml:
> >>
> >> Current:
> >> PCED sub-TLV Type Indicator
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >> PCE Discovery (PCED) Sub-TLV Type Indicator
> >>
> >>> From RFC 5089:
> >>   This document defines a new sub-TLV (named the PCE Discovery (PCED))
> >>   to be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Happy with the change!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC 5925. Would the
> following update be agreeable?  We note that RFC 5925 is already in the
> References section.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
> >>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is needed
> >>   to indicate support.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   As described in Section 10.2 of [RFC5440], an PCEP speaker MUST
> >>   support TCP MD5 [RFC2385], so no capability advertisement is needed
> >>   to indicate support.  (Note that RFC 2385 has been obsoleted by RFC
> >>   5925.)
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: I think the reference RFC2385 itself needs to change. I see two
> option, we could either -
> >>
> >> A: Not using any reference, I see published RFCs which include the term
> "MD5" without a reference as it is quite well-known.
> >> B: Use the reference as RFC 1321 (can also say that is obsoleted by RFC
> 5925)
> >>
> >> I think it should be “a PCEP speaker” rather than “an PCEP speaker
> since neither “P” or “Path” would be preceded by “an”.
> >> I don’t feel strongly about the reference – FBOW MD5 is deployed.
> Either option is fine with me stating that it has been
> >> obsoleted.
> >>
> >> I would like to know the opinion of the RFC editor team and others in
> CC!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized
> >> or left in their current order?-->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Please alphabetize them.
> >>
> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] We note that the URL provided for the reference below
> >>     goes to a page titled "Unicode Security Considerations" instead
> >>     of "Character Encoding Model". Please let us know how we should
> >>     update this reference.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   [UTR36]    Davis, M., "Unicode Technical Report #36, Character
> >>              Encoding Model",
> >>              UTR17 https://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr36/,
> >>              February 2005. -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Thanks for spotting this! Please correct this to ->
> >>
> >> Davis, M., Ed. and M. Suignard, Ed., "Unicode Security Considerations",
> Unicode Technical Report #36, August 2010, <
> http://unicode.org/reports/tr36/>.
> >>
> >> This is what I see in RFC 9003.
> >>
> >>
> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology
> use
> >>     throughout the document:
> >>
> >> a) We see the following variations with regard to spacing,
> >> hyphenation, and capping. Please review occurrences and let us know
> >> if/how these may be made consistent.
> >>
> >> key-chain vs. keychain vs. key chain
> >>
> >> Dhruv: key chain
> >>
> >> Agreed. This is consistent with RFC 8177.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> key-chain name vs. Key Chain Name vs. keychain name
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: key chain name (and capitalize based on context)
> >>
> >> Also in section 3.3.1, the field name "Key Name" should be "Key Chain
> Name" to align with 3.3.2
> >>
> >>
> >> Note we see both Key Chain Name sub-TLV and KEY-CHAIN-NAME sub-TLV as
> well.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: Use KEY-CHAIN-NAME sub-TLV
> >>
> >>
> >> b) We see the following mixed use of KeyID and Key ID (spacing).  May
> >> these be made uniform?  If so, how may we update?
> >>
> >> ...[RFC5925] (referred to as KeyID).
> >> vs.
> >> KeyID: The one octet Key ID as per [RFC5925]
> >> (Note: we assume KEY-ID sub-TLV should remain as is).
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: My preference is for KeyID and yes when referring to sub-TLV it
> should be KEY-ID sub-TLV.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 18) <!-- [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. For example, please consider whether
> >> the term "Master Key Tuple (MKT)" should be updated.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> KeyID: The one octet Key ID as per [RFC5925] to uniquely identify
> >> the Master Key Tuple (MKT). -->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dhruv: No change is needed.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Dhruv
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> RFC Editor/mc/mf
> >>
> >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>
> >> Updated 2022/12/23
> >>
> >> 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/rfc9353.xml
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.pdf
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.txt
> >>
> >> Diff file of the text:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-diff.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> >>
> >> Diff of the XML:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353-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/rfc9353.original.v2v3.xml
> >>
> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> >> only:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9353.form.xml
> >>
> >>
> >> Tracking progress
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9353
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>
> >> RFC Editor
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC9353 (draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13)
> >>
> >> Title            : IGP extension for PCEP security capability support
> in PCE discovery
> >> Author(s)        : D. Lopez, Q. Wu, D. Dhody, Q. Ma, D. King
> >> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >>
> >
>
>