Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear Peter and Italo,

We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270

As we now have all approvals, we will prepare this document for publication shortly.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> Date: August 9, 2022 at 12:19:04 AM PDT
> To: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>, "Hejia (Jia)" <[e-mail]>, 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: John Scudder <[e-mail]>, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, RFC System <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Hi Lynne
> 
> I approve the document for publication in its current form.
> 
> Thanks, Italo


> On Aug 8, 2022, at 4:17 PM, 박춘걸(AI Managed Service Projec) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynne,
> 
> Thank you for all the contributions on this document.
> I have a confirmation on this document ready for publication.
> 
> Best regards,
> Peter.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 9:36 PM
> To: 'Lynne Bartholomew' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 박춘걸(AI Managed Service Projec) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: 'John Scudder' <[e-mail]>; 'Jeong-dong Ryoo' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'RFC System' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> 
> Dear Lynne,
> 
> I approve the document for publication in its current form.
> Thanks for your hard work.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <>
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 4:05 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: John Scudder <[e-mail]>; Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; RFC System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> 
> Dear Jia, Italo, Bin, and Peter,
> 
> We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication.
> 
> Please review the updated files, and let us know whether further changes are needed or you approve the document for publication in its current form.
> 
> The latest files are posted here:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html
> 
> The AUTH48 status page is here:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, John.  We have noted your approval:
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 8:29 AM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Lynne,
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 15, 2022, at 8:13 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),
>>>> 
>>>> * John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).
>>> 
>>> Yes, this change is fine, thanks for checking.
>>> 
>>> —John
>> 
> 
>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
>> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
>> Date: July 19, 2022 at 12:55:55 PM PDT
>> To: Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail], John Scudder <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail], [e-mail], 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail], RFC System <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail], Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> Dear Jeong-dong,
>> 
>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
>> 
>> Thank you very much!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2022, at 6:09 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Lynne,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the updates. They are all good to me. I hope the outstanding issue related to the removal of "MUST" will be finalized according to the response from our AD, John. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Jeong-dong
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:  "Lynne Bartholomew" <[e-mail]>
>>> To:     "Jeong-dong Ryoo" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "John Scudder" <[e-mail]>; 
>>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "윤빈영" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "RFC System" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>>> Sent:  2022-07-16 (토) 09:14:14 (UTC+09:00)
>>> Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
>>> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
>>> 
>>> Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),
>>> 
>>> * John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).
>>> 
>>> Jeong-dong, thank you for your prompt reply!  We have updated this document per your notes below.
>>> 
>>> The latest files are posted here:
>>> 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html
>>> 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html
>>> 
>>> Thanks again for your quick reply and help!
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your email. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please, see my answers to your questions as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Thank you for the improvements you've done. I am ok with the changes.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) As you pointed out, I couldn't find the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209, either. I suggest the following change (removing MUST):
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> Per RFC
>>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel 
>>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object).
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> Per RFC
>>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they have the same Tunnel 
>>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object).
>>>> 
>>>> 3) According to the definition and usage of the <aside> element, it looks like there will be no problem putting the "Note:" in the <aside> element. But, I don't know what the resulting text looks like if the <aside> element is used. Nevertheless, I should be ok as long as the text is there.
>>>> 
>>>> 4) Thank you for taking a close look at those reference documents as well. Both  expressions are understood to be the same. I would like to keep object names consistent in this document by making them all uppercase.
>>>> 
>>>> 5) Yes, it means "preemption status". I am fine with your suggestion.
>>>> 
>>>> 6) "SMP" in the "SMP protecting LSP" is not really necessary. Since we use "protecting  LSP" throughout this document except Section 5.6, please, replace "SMP protecting LSP" with "protecting LSP" in Section 5.6.    
>>>> 
>>>> 7) Sorry for the confusion. Suggestion #1 is correct.
>>>> 
>>>> 8) Your change is good.
>>>> 
>>>> 9) I am aware of the terms related to the "inclusive language" and tried not to use them. I don't think any changes are needed. 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) No objection. Thank you for the consistency check.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Jeong-dong
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:  "" <[e-mail]>
>>>> To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>>>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>>>> Sent:  2022-07-13 (수) 07:37:12 (UTC+09:00)
>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
>>>> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
>>>> 
>>>> Authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body 
>>>> of
>>>> document:  Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define 
>>>> extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we 
>>>> changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below.  Please review, 
>>>> and let us know any concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> GMPLS Extension for SMP
>>>> ...
>>>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . .   5
>>>> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>>>> ...
>>>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation 
>>>> Protocol
>>>> - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
>>>> (SMR) mechanisms.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> GMPLS Extensions for SMP
>>>> ...
>>>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions 5.  GMPLS 
>>>> Signaling Extensions for SMP ...
>>>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation 
>>>> Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh 
>>>> Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We could not verify the "MUST" as 
>>>> related to RFC 3209.  Please verify that this text is correct and 
>>>> will be clear to readers.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Per RFC
>>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel 
>>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Please review whether this "Note:" 
>>>> item should be in the <aside> element.  <aside> is defined as "a 
>>>> container for content that is semantically less important or 
>>>> tangential to the content that surrounds it"
>>>> (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching 
>>>> signaling is done via data plane. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3:  We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status"
>>>> instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use 
>>>> "ADMIN_STATUS".  However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status".  Will 
>>>> these distinctions be clear to readers?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the 
>>>> ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:  Does "preempted situation" mean 
>>>> "preemption status" or something else?  If the suggested text is not 
>>>> correct, please clarify.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Once the working LSP and the
>>>> protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST 
>>>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of 
>>>> failure or preempted situation.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> Once the working LSP and the
>>>> protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST 
>>>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of 
>>>> failure or preemption status. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6:  Do these four instances of "SMP 
>>>> protecting LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for 
>>>> SMP", or something else?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the 
>>>> nodes along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP.
>>>> 
>>>> In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS 
>>>> channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path 
>>>> of the SMP protecting LSP.  This is done by other means than GMPLS 
>>>> signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up.
>>>> Therefore, there are likely additional requirements for APS 
>>>> configuration which are outside the scope of this document.
>>>> 
>>>> Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may 
>>>> use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP 
>>>> protecting LSP. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  We had trouble determining what is 
>>>> "only applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1".
>>>> If neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The O bit is only
>>>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type 
>>>> Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 
>>>> Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or
>>>> 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied):
>>>> The O bit is only
>>>> applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection 
>>>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08
>>>> (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional 
>>>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>>>> 
>>>> Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1):
>>>> The O bit is only
>>>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1.  Also, the LSP Protection 
>>>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic),
>>>> 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional 
>>>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3:  This paragraph was difficult to 
>>>> follow; for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly.
>>>> Also, the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, 
>>>> Paragraph 1, last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873.
>>>> We updated the text as follows.  Please review carefully, and let us 
>>>> know if anything is incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>>>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, 
>>>> and left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification 
>>>> further allocates the preemption priority field from those 
>>>> formerly-reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object 
>>>> defined in [RFC4873] are updated as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has 
>>>> been corrected):
>>>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>>>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and 
>>>> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further 
>>>> allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly 
>>>> reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined 
>>>> in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document 
>>>> as
>>>> follows: -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
>>>> the online Style Guide at 
>>>> <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 or phrases. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in 
>>>> this document.  We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us 
>>>> know any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872)
>>>> 
>>>> Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872, with 
>>>> one exception, which appears to be an oversight) -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> 
>>>> Updated 2022/07/12
>>>> 
>>>> 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-4Q9l2US
>>>> xIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>> 
>>>> *  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/rfc9270.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>> side)
>>>> 
>>>> For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that 
>>>> will allow you to more easily view changes where text has been 
>>>> deleted or
>>>> moved:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>>>> 
>>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-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/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml
>>>> 
>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format 
>>>> updates
>>>> only: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>> 
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
>>>> Author(s)        : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park
>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger
>>>> 
>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>