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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jia and Bin,

We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:

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

Thank you very much!

RFC Editor/lb


> From: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> Date: August 8, 2022 at 5:35:32 AM PDT
> To: "'Lynne Bartholomew'" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[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]>
> 
> Dear Lynne,
> 
> I approve the document for publication in its current form.
> Thanks for your hard work.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bin

> On Aug 8, 2022, at 5:31 AM, Hejia (Jia) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I think the document is ready for publication in its current form. Thanks a lot for your hard work.
> 
> B.R.
> Jia
> 发件人：Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> 收件人：Hejia (Jia) <[e-mail]>;Italo Busi <[e-mail]>;윤빈영 <[e-mail]>;peter.park <[e-mail]>
> 抄 送：John Scudder <[e-mail]>;Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>;teas-ads <[e-mail]>;RFC System <[e-mail]>;TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>;Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>;auth48archive <[e-mail]>
> 时 间：2022-08-06 03:05:53
> 主 题：Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 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-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/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
> >>> 
> >>>