Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your review

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Lynne -

Thanx for the clarification.
I still prefer no table names - I can live with the format limitations.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 1:49 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Peter
> Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lsr-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; auth48archive@rfc-
> editor.org
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your
> review
> 
> Hi, Les.
> 
> Thank you for the clarification re. question 14)b) and the erratum text.
> 
> As for the placement of the "Table X" lines in the PDF and HTML files, this is a
> feature of xml2rfc v3, and we're not able to center the "Table X" lines in PDF or
> HTML.
> 
> We know that the topic of table titles in this document was covered earlier --
> not to use any for this document -- but if the tables had titles, this effect would
> not be so jarring in the PDF and HTML files.
> 
> Please let us know what you think; we'll wait to hear from you again before
> noting your approval.
> 
> Thanks for your patience!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> > On Sep 27, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Lynne -
> >
> > I have checked all of the additional changes - they have all been completed to
> my satisfaction.
> >
> > One minor formatting request -  the "Table X" titles associated with each
> table appear centered in the .txt file - but are left aligned (at the table
> boundary) in the PDF and HTML files.
> > Is it possible to have them centered in the PDF/HTML files as well?
> >
> > In regards to Question 14b - sorry for overlooking that.
> > When I began work on the bis version, I noted that the Errata that had been
> filed had a cut and paste error - there actually were no changes required to
> Section 6.2 - but I had mistakenly cut and pasted the changes for Section 4.2 a
> second time as if they should also be applied to Section 6.2.
> > No one noticed this when discussing the Errata - and since the Errata is
> formally marked as rejected (in favor of doing a bis version of the RFC) I saw
> no reason to correct the already rejected Errata.
> >
> > Bravo to you for noticing this - but this is why there are no changes to
> Section 6.2. 😊
> >
> > Other than the minor format correction mentioned above, this latest version
> has my approval.
> > Thanx for all that you do.
> >
> >   Les
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:42 PM
> >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> <[e-mail]>;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; lsr-
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for
> your
> >> review
> >>
> >> Hi, Les and Acee.
> >>
> >> Thank you for the emails.  Les, thank you for your thorough review and
> replies
> >> to our questions.
> >>
> >> Les, we took a look at the five most recent RFCs that obsolete other RFCs
> >> (RFCs 9399, 9411, 9436, 9438, and 9457) and found that in all five cases
> the
> >> RFC or RFCs being obsoleted were listed under Informative References. As
> you
> >> noted below, Informative Reference is indeed the appropriate choice here as
> >> well, and we've moved the listing accordingly.  Apologies for any confusion.
> >>
> >> Please advise re. our question 14)b):
> >>
> >>>> b) We see that the "NEW" text for Section 4.2 was applied per
> >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630> but the "NEW" text for
> >>>> Section 6.2 was not.  Is this as desired (i.e., does "subject to the
> >>>> restrictions specified in Section 4.2" in the first paragraph of
> >>>> Section 6.2 handle the erratum information adequately?)? -->
> >>
> >>
> >> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
> >>
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.txt
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.pdf
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.xml
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-diff.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-rfcdiff.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-auth48diff.html
> >>
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff1.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff2.html
> >>
> >> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect
> or
> >> we missed anything.
> >>
> >> Thanks again!
> >>
> >> RFC Editor/lb
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 26, 2023, at 8:11 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> >> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Acee -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree - but at most this is only informational.
> >>> The discussion of what changed from RFC 8919 is informative from a
> >> historical perspective - and may be useful to implementors who wrote code
> >> based on RFC 8919 and want to check whether they need to make any
> >> changes to be conformant to RFC 9479, but RFC 9479 should stand on its
> >> own. If an implementor never knew of the existence of RFC 8919 it should
> not
> >> matter.
> >>>
> >>> So maybe Informative Reference is the appropriate choice here?
> >>>
> >>>  Les
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 26, 2023, at 7:55 AM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think it is common practice to reference the obsoleted draft in the
> >> “Differences from RFCxxxx” text.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Acee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 8:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> >> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And one other issue, highlighted in the review of RFC8920bis (to become
> >> RFC9492)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> References to:
> >>>
> >>> [SEGMENT-ROUTING]
> >>>             Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
> >>>             A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
> >>>             RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
> >>>             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
> >>>
> >>> Need to be changed to use [RFC9256].
> >>> The name [SEGMENT_ROUTING] occurs because when RFC 8919 was
> >> published RFC9256 did not exist - it was still in draft form.
> >>>
> >>>  Les
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 7:50 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> >> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One correction to my responses:
> >>>
> >>> Given that this document obsoletes RFC8919, it seems inappropriate to
> >> include RFC 8919 as a reference at all.
> >>> At a minimum, it seems odd to have an obsoleted document as a
> Normative
> >> Reference.
> >>>
> >>> What is the correct policy here?
> >>>
> >>> (Sorry for missing this earlier)
> >>>
> >>>  Les
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 3:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> >> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks -
> >>>
> >>> Please find my responses to your questions inline below.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:59 PM
> >>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak)
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> 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] Please note that because the XML file for this document
> >>>> was submitted in "prepped" format, we created a "nonprepped" copy of
> >>>> the file in order to edit the document properly.  This does not
> >>>> impact the document's text but resulted in many changes to the XML
> >>>> code (as can be viewed in the "xmldiff" files that will be provided
> >>>> when this document moves to the AUTH48 state). -->
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] Understood. Out of an abundance of caution I started with the XML
> >> available from Datatracker for RFC 8919. It had a number of
> "strangenesses"
> >> (at least to me) - but I chose not to modify them as I wanted the
> text/format
> >> to be as close as possible to RFC 8919.
> >>> I wish there had been a more "up to date" version of the XML for me to
> start
> >> with - but there was not.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the
> >>>> title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] None added.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2:  Please confirm that the citation for
> >>>> RFC 7855 ("Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem
> >>>> Statement and Requirements") is correct and will be clear to readers.
> >>>> We are unsure if "Source Packet Routing" and "Segment Routing" mean
> the
> >>>> same thing.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] It is fine as is. Segment Routing is an instance of the more general
> >> concept of "Source Packet Routing".
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> [RFC7855] discusses use cases and requirements for Segment Routing
> >>>> (SR). -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3 and subsequent:  We see that the instances of
> >>>> "TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223" in RFC 8919 have been replaced
> >>>> by "TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information" in running text in this
> >>>> document.  In some places, the new text reads oddly.  Should "TLVs
> >>>> Advertising Neighbor Information" be "TLVs advertising neighbor
> >>>> information", as is done in the text on
> >>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/>?
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] I have looked at the use cases - I think the text is fine as is.
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Existing advertisements used in support of RSVP-TE include sub-TLVs
> >>>> for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information and TLVs for Shared Risk
> >>>> Link Group (SRLG) advertisement.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> 1)  Application-Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV for TLVs Advertising
> >>>>    Neighbor Information (defined in Section 4.2).
> >>>> ...
> >>>> A new sub-TLV for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information is defined
> >>>> that supports specification of the applications and application-
> >>>> specific attribute values.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> When the L-flag is set in the Application Identifier Bit Mask, all of
> >>>> the applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the legacy
> >>>> advertisements for the corresponding link found in TLVs Advertising
> >>>> Neighbor Information. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Tables 1 and 5: We have changed "TE Default Metric" to
> >>>> "TE Default metric" per RFC 5305. We will ask that IANA make this
> >>>> capitalization consistent in its registies prior to publication.
> >>>> Please let us know of any objections. -->
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] No objection
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We see that Table 1 has a title but Tables 2 through 7
> >>>> do not.  Would you like all of the tables to have titles?  If yes,
> >>>> please provide them.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] Honestly, I think there is no need for a title for any of the tables - it is
> >> the table format that is useful for presentation.
> >>> So my choice would be to remove the title for Table I.
> >>> If you insist, I can come up with names for the other tables, but I don’t
> think
> >> they add any value.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising
> >>>>         Neighbor Information
> >>>> Table 2
> >>>> Table 3
> >>>> Table 4
> >>>> Table 5
> >>>> Table 6
> >>>> Table 7 -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1:  Should the section title be "Application
> >>>> Identifier Bit Masks" or "Application Identifier Bit Mask Types"?
> >>>> We ask because we see "two bit masks" in the sentence that follows,
> >>>> as well as "zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks" elsewhere.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] Title is fine as is.
> >>> Application Identifier Bit Masks is the name of the set of fields (SABM
> >> Length, UDABM Length, SABM bit mask, UDABM bit mask) which are
> encoded
> >> in the ASLA sub-TLV.
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> 4.1.  Application Identifier Bit Mask -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.2 and 4.3:  We cannot tell whether "SABM" in
> >>>> these sentences refers to the SABM field or the SABM Length field.
> >>>> Will these sentences be clear to readers, or should "SABM or UDABM
> >>>> Length" be "SABM Length or UDABM Length"?
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] It is probably clearer to say "SABM Length or UDABM length"
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is
> >>>> greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
> >>>>
> >>>> When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all
> >>>> applications specified in the bit mask MUST use the link attribute
> >>>> advertisements in the sub-TLV.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> If the SABM or UDABM Length in the Application Identifier Bit Mask is
> >>>> greater than 8, the entire sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
> >>>>
> >>>> When SABM or UDABM Length is non-zero and the L-flag is NOT set, all
> >>>> applications specified in the bit mask MUST use SRLG advertisements
> >>>> in the Application-Specific SRLG TLV. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2:  For ease of the reader, should "LSP" be
> >>>> defined as "Label-Switched Path" per RFC 3209 or "Link State Protocol
> >>>> Data Unit" per RFC 5305?
> >>>
> >>> [LES:] "Link State Protocol Data Unit"
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> In cases where conflicting values for the same
> >>>> application/attribute/link are advertised, the first advertisement
> >>>> received in the lowest-numbered LSP MUST be used, and subsequent
> >>>> advertisements of the same attribute MUST be ignored. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3:  As it appears that "a single TLV" refers
> >>>> to the new Application-Specific SRLG TLV and not to some other type
> >>>> of TLV, we changed "a single TLV" to "this new single TLV" here.
> >>>> If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text.
> >>>
> >>> [LES:] This is fine.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
> >>>> A new TLV is defined to advertise application-specific SRLGs for a
> >>>> given link.  Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 [RFC5307]
> >>>> and TLV 139 [RFC6119], a single TLV provides support for IPv4, IPv6,
> >>>> and unnumbered identifiers for a link.
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently:
> >>>> Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 [RFC5307]
> >>>> and TLV 139 [RFC6119], this new single TLV provides support for IPv4,
> >>>> IPv6, and unnumbered identifiers for a link. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Sections 5 and 6:  We changed lowercased instances of
> >>>> "application-specific link attribute(s)" to "ASLA(s)" per the
> >>>> expansion provided in Section 4.  Please review, and let us know any
> >>>> objections. -->
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] No objection
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Sections 5 and subsequent:  The following instances of
> >>>> "LFA" in these sentences read oddly.  Should they be plural or
> >>>> perhaps "LFA Policy"?
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] "LFA" is correct. This refers to the application types defined in
> Section
> >> 4.1
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> In the case of LFA, the advertisement of application-specific link
> >>>> attributes does not indicate enablement of LFA on that link.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> *  The application is SR Policy or LFA, and RSVP-TE is not deployed
> >>>>   anywhere in the network.
> >>>>
> >>>> *  The application is SR Policy or LFA, RSVP-TE is deployed in the
> >>>>   network, and both the set of links on which SR Policy and/or LFA
> >>>>   advertisements are required and the attribute values used by SR
> >>>>   Policy and/or LFA on all such links are fully congruent with the
> >>>>   links and attribute values used by RSVP-TE.
> >>>>
> >>>> Under the conditions defined above, implementations that support the
> >>>> extensions defined in this document have the choice of using legacy
> >>>> advertisements or application-specific advertisements in support of
> >>>> SR Policy and/or LFA.
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Existing deployments of RSVP-TE, SR Policy, and/or LFA utilize the
> >>>> legacy advertisements listed in Section 3. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 5:  Per previous text in this document, we
> >>>> changed "advertisement of link attribute advertisements" to
> >>>> "advertisement of link attributes".  If this is incorrect, please
> >>>> provide alternative text.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] This is fine.
> >>>
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> In the presence of
> >>>> an application where the advertisement of link attribute
> >>>> advertisements is used to infer the enablement of an application on
> >>>> that link (e.g., RSVP-TE), the absence of the application identifier
> >>>> leaves ambiguous whether that application is enabled on such a link.
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently:
> >>>> In the presence of
> >>>> an application where the advertisement of link attributes is used to
> >>>> infer the enablement of an application on that link (e.g., RSVP-TE),
> >>>> the absence of the application identifier leaves ambiguous whether
> >>>> that application is enabled on such a link. -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 9:
> >>>>
> >>>> a) We could not locate the discussion in question via the information
> >>>> in the current text.  Searching by thread on
> >>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/> for
> >>>> "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920" directed us to
> >>>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/>, which provides an
> >>>> "Enter list name or search query..." box, which did not yield the
> >>>> desired information.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] The removal of the URL was done based on feedback during IESG
> >> review. IT was commented that any such URL might not be valid
> indefinitely.
> >>>
> >>> When I put "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920" into the search bar at
> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/ I do find the relevant thread.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> However, when looking at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630>
> >>>> (the erratum page for RFC 8919), we found
> >>>>
> >>
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_15rAwElfpGLDRxqjUuUJHiGdrQ/
> >>>>> .
> >>>> Would pointing to this link instead of 'the thread "Proposed Errata
> >>>> for RFCs 8919/8920"' be acceptable?  If not, please provide a URL
> >>>> that can be listed as a good starting point for readers interested in
> >>>> this information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Original (the previous sentence is included for context):
> >>>> Discussion within the LSR WG indicated that there was confusion
> >>>> regarding the use of ASLA advertisements that had a zero length SABM/
> >>>> UDABM.  The discussion can be seen by searching the LSR WG mailing
> >>>> list archives for the thread "Proposed Errata for RFCs 8919/8920"
> >>>> starting on 15 June 2021.
> >>>>
> >>>> Possibly:
> >>>> Discussion within the LSR WG indicated that there was confusion
> >>>> regarding the use of ASLA advertisements that had a zero-length SABM/
> >>>> UDABM.  The discussion can be seen on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_15rAwElfpGLDRxqjUuUJHiGdrQ/
> >>>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> b) We see that the "NEW" text for Section 4.2 was applied per
> >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630> but the "NEW" text for
> >>>> Section 6.2 was not.  Is this as desired (i.e., does "subject to the
> >>>> restrictions specified in Section 4.2" in the first paragraph of
> >>>> Section 6.2 handle the erratum information adequately?)? -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] We added RFC 8919 to the list of Normative References.
> >>>> Please let us know if it should be an Informative Reference instead.
> >>>
> >>> [LES:] Fine as a normative reference.
> >>>
> >>>> -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 16) <!-- [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 in particular, but this
> >>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
> >>>
> >>> [LES:] No changes are needed that I can see.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently in
> >>>> this document.  Please let us know which form is preferred.
> >>>>
> >>> [LES:] Please use lower case "legacy".
> >>>
> >>>   Les
> >>>
> >>>> Legacy sub-TLV / legacy sub-TLV (text in Section 4.2) -->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> RFC Editor/lb/ap
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 25, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> >> <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Folks -
> >>>
> >>> I am fine with the changes introduced with the following exceptions:
> >>>
> >>> 1)Section 6.3.3
> >>>
> >>> "while continuing to use legacy advertisements"
> >>>
> >>> Please change this to
> >>>
> >>> "while continuing to advertise legacy advertisements"
> >>>
> >>> The point is to indicate that both forms need to be advertised(sic).
> >>> The last sentence in the paragraph clearly states what is used.
> >>>
> >>> 2)Section 7.2
> >>>
> >>> You have changed column #2 to be "Name" - but the corresponding
> registry
> >> uses the original term "Description".
> >>> Please revert this change.
> >>>
> >>> 3)Section 7.5
> >>>
> >>> You changed the title to "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV
> >> Registry (for TLV 238)".
> >>>
> >>> This does not match the title in the registry:
> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-
> >> codepoints.xhtml#tlv-238
> >>>
> >>> "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV"
> >>>
> >>>   Les
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:57 PM
> >>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak)
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9479 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04> for your
> >>>> review
> >>>>
> >>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>>
> >>>> Updated 2023/09/11
> >>>>
> >>>> 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/rfc9479.xml
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.html
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.pdf
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-diff.html
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >>>>
> >>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9479-xmldiff1.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tracking progress
> >>>> -----------------
> >>>>
> >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9479
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>
> >>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> RFC9479 (draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis-04)
> >>>>
> >>>> Title            : IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes
> >>>> Author(s)        : L. Ginsberg, P. Psenak, S. Previdi, W. Henderickx, J. Drake
> >>>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> >>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >>>>
> >>>
> >