Hi Xufeng, Thank you for your reply (and thank you for your patience throughout this process). We have updated your affiliation to "Individual". Please review the document (specifically the document header and Authors’ Addresses section) and let us know if you approve this document for publication. Once we hear back from you, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
Updated files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.xml Diff files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 19, 2025, at 1:30 PM, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > I have checked my company after receiving Jim's email. They have accepted > what Jim suggested. So, can you please list me with no affiliation? Doing so > allows us to avoid these company statements. > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:14 PM Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Madison, > > Thanks for your email. Yes, I have read James' email, so I'm checking again > with the company. > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 1:19 PM Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Hi Xufeng, > > We have updated your affiliation to "The MITRE Corporation" as requested. > Please also see mail sent from James Guichard (Responsible AD for RFC 9719) > on March 4th. We will await your response before moving forward. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Mar 4, 2025, at 11:12 AM, James Guichard > > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > As the responsible AD for this WG I am not comfortable with this solution > > for a variety of reasons. I would prefer that the author be listed with no > > affiliation. Is this acceptable Xufeng? > > Jim > > From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> > > Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM > > To: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Cc: ShaoWen Ma <mashao...@gmail.com>, ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn > > <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, > > Bruno Rijsman <brunorijs...@gmail.com>, wei.yue...@zte.com.cn > > <wei.yue...@zte.com.cn>, Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net>, RFC Editor > > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, rift-...@ietf.org <rift-...@ietf.org>, > > rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>, James Guichard > > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, auth48archive@rfc-ed > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 <draft-ietf-rift-yang-17> for your > > review > > Hi Madison, > > My affiliated company is ok with the document now, but requests to add the > > following statement in the Acknowledgement section: > > > > OLD: > > 6. Acknowledgement > > The authors would like to thank Tony Przygienda, Jordan Head, Benchong Xu > > (xu.bench...@zte.com.cn), Tom Petch for their review, valuable comments and > > suggestions. > > > > NEW: > > 6. Acknowledgement > > The authors would like to thank Tony Przygienda, Jordan Head, Benchong Xu > > (xu.bench...@zte.com.cn), Tom Petch for their review, valuable comments and > > suggestions. > > > > Author affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for > > identification purposes only and is not intended to convey or imply MITRE's > > concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions, or viewpoints > > expressed by the author. (c)2025 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights > > Reserved. MITRE has approved this document for Public Release, Distribution > > Unlimited, with Public Release Case Number 25-0633. > > END > > Also, can you please update my affiliation as follows? > > The MITRE Corporation > > > > Sorry for holding this for so long, and thanks a lot, > > - Xufeng > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 11:21 AM Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > > > Thanks for the update. I think that I am getting closer. > > Thanks, > > - Xufeng > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 9:58 AM Madison Church > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Shaowen and *Xufeng, > > > > Shaowen - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the > > AUTH48 status page for this document [1]. > > > > *Xufeng - If more time is needed on your end for approval or if there are > > any additional updates/changes regarding your situation, please let us > > know. Also note that RFC-to-be-9692 (a normative reference for this > > document in Cluster 513) is still in AUTH48 [2], which will allow for more > > time to obtain your approval if needed. Once we receive your approval and > > RFC-to-be-9692 completes AUTH48, we will move this document forward in the > > publication process. > > > > [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719 > > [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C513 > > > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > On Feb 27, 2025, at 10:18 PM, ShaoWen Ma <mashao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I approve the publication as one of the co-authors. > > > > > > Best Regards > > > Shaowen Ma > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:50 AM Madison Church > > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > Hi Xufeng and Sandy, > > > > > > Thank you both for the updates! We will make note of the situation and > > > wait to hear back from you. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2025, at 8:10 PM, <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> > > > > <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Jeffrey, Xufeng, Madison and Shaowen, > > > > I sent a message to Shaowen before and he is waiting for the company's > > > > approval. Seems like it also take a long time for his company to > > > > approve. > > > > So maybe we can wait a little longer. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sandy > > > > > > > > > > > > Original > > > > From: XufengLiu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> > > > > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; > > > > Cc: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>;Bruno Rijsman > > > > <brunorijs...@gmail.com>;魏月华00019655;张征00007940;mashao...@gmail.com > > > > <mashao...@gmail.com>;RFC Editor > > > > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;rift-...@ietf.org > > > > <rift-...@ietf.org>;rift-cha...@ietf.org <rift-cha...@ietf.org>;Jordan > > > > Head <jh...@juniper.net>;James Guichard > > > > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>;auth48archive@rfc-ed > > > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > > > > Date: 2025年02月16日 22:57 > > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 <draft-ietf-rift-yang-17> for your > > > > reviewHi Jeffrey, Sandy, and Madison, > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the suggestions. My issue is mostly the timing and the > > > > slow process on my side. If we have some more time, I may be able to do > > > > any of these. At this moment, I still don't have the result. To unblock > > > > the publication immediately, the safest way is simply to remove. As > > > > Madison mentioned, if we are still waiting for Shaowen, I may have more > > > > time. I'll give the update. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Xufeng > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > > > > <zzh...@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Xufeng, > > > > > > > > Is it that your current employer does not want an affiliation with this > > > > (or any) IETF documents? > > > > One solution could be that you're listed as an individual co-author (no > > > > company affiliation). > > > > > > > > Jeffrey > > > > > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:46 PM > > > > To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>; Bruno Rijsman > > > > <brunorijs...@gmail.com>; wei.yue...@zte.com.cn; > > > > ext-zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn <zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn>;mashao...@gmail.com > > > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; rift-...@ietf.org; > > > > rift-cha...@ietf.org; Jordan Head <jh...@juniper.net>; James Guichard > > > > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed > > > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 <draft-ietf-rift-yang-17> for your > > > > review > > > > > > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Xufeng, > > > > > > > > Thank you for informing us of the situation. If removing your name as > > > > an author is needed, would you like to be listed as a contributor (it > > > > would mean adding a Contributors section) or mentioned in the > > > > Acknowledgements section? > > > > > > > > Please note that we are currently waiting on approval from Shaowen Ma > > > > as well. We can check in with you to see how the process is going once > > > > we hear from Shaowen. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. I recently changed my employment, and the new > > > > > employer has different policies. I am still trying to go through the > > > > > process, but it is slow. To unblock the publication process, I'd like > > > > > to remove myself from the author list. Sorry for the inconvenience. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > - Xufeng > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:29 AM Madison Church > > > > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shaowen and Xufeng, > > > > > > > > > > This is a reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding > > > > > this document’s readiness for publication. > > > > > > > > > > Please review the AUTH48 status page > > > > > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vLI3PIEg$ > > > > > ) for further information and the previous messages in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2025, at 11:44 AM, Madison Church > > > > > > <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yuehua and Bruno, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you both for your replies. We have noted your approval and > > > > > > incorporated our edits into the updated files below per Bruno’s > > > > > > guidance. In addition to our updates, note that we also added <em> > > > > > > tags to italicize term "ThreeWay" for consistency with RFCs 9692 > > > > > > and 9696. > > > > > > > > > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sG1irukA$ > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vX_l0l4g$ > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5tGe1X-Ng$ > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97 > > > > > > 19.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mV > > > > > > Z6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5shGew8YA$ > > > > > > > > > > > > The updated diffs have been posted here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vJjrFaUQ$ > > > > > > (comprehensive diff) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sX8aD9tA$ > > > > > > (side by side) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9719-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u_hrHeog$ > > > > > > (AUTH48 changes only) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97 > > > > > > 19-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vp > > > > > > ma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5ulV7CH4g$ (side > > > > > > by side) > > > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc971 > > > > > > 9__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5 > > > > > > c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u8aKH7yQ$ > > > > > > > > > > > > Once we receive approvals from Shaowen and Xufeng, we will move > > > > > > this document forward in the publication process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 11:04 PM, Bruno Rijsman > > > > > >> <brunorijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dear RFC editors, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thank you very much for your careful review and final edits. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have carefully reviewed all the changes in the diff, and I agree > > > > > >> with them. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I also agree with your suggested changes to fix the comments in > > > > > >> items #1 through #11 below, and I have read the style guide > > > > > >> mentioned in #12. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I approve this RFC for publication. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Also my sincere thanks to the co-authors for their work on this > > > > > >> document. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> — Bruno Rijsman > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On Jan 16, 2025, at 3:14 AM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.orgwrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Authors, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > > > > > >>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML > > > > > >>> file. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the abbreviated title (which > > > > > >>> appears in the running header of the PDF) as follows. Please let > > > > > >>> us know if you prefer otherwise. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original: > > > > > >>> RIFT YANG Model > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Current: > > > > > >>> RIFT YANG Data Model > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] The Terminology section (Section 3.1) states that > > > > > >>> terms and their definitions are copied from RFC 9692. However, we > > > > > >>> note that definitions in this section contain a mix of sentences > > > > > >>> directly from RFC 9692, paraphrased sentences from RFC 9692, as > > > > > >>> well as mirrored definitions missing words throughout. If there > > > > > >>> are no objections, we will revise the Terminology section in this > > > > > >>> document to accurately reflect the definitions that appear in RFC > > > > > >>> 9692. Please let us know any concerns. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> For example: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "TIE" in RFC 9692 (Original): > > > > > >>> This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element". TIEs are > > > > > >>> exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such > > > > > >>> as links and address prefixes. A TIE has always a direction and a > > > > > >>> type. North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when > > > > > >>> dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs > > > > > >>> (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. > > > > > >>> TIEs have different types such as node and prefix TIEs. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> "TIE" in this document (Original): > > > > > >>> "Topology Information Element" are exchanged between RIFT nodes to > > > > > >>> describe parts of a network such as links and address prefixes. A > > > > > >>> TIE has always a direction and a type. North TIEs (sometimes > > > > > >>> abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when dealing with TIEs in the > > > > > >>> northbound representation and South-TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as > > > > > >>> S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent. TIEs have different types > > > > > >>> such as node and prefix TIEs. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note that the following paragraph appears in > > > > > >>> Sections 2.1 and 2.3. To avoid repetition, may we remove the > > > > > >>> duplicate text from one section or the other? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original (Sections 2.1 and 2.3): > > > > > >>> The RIFT YANG module augments the > > > > > >>> /routing/control-plane-protocols/ control-plane-protocol path > > > > > >>> defined in the ietf-routing module. This model augments the > > > > > >>> routing module to add RIFT as a control plane protocol. It then > > > > > >>> offers the ability to create a list of instances, which it does by > > > > > >>> declaring 'list rift'. Multiple instances of the protocol are > > > > > >>> supported by the module by giving each instance a unique name. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we corrected 'sourth' to 'south' (3 > > > > > >>> instances). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> From the original: > > > > > >>> 465: | | +-ro total-num-routes-sourth? > > > > > >>> 2418: leaf total-num-routes-sourth { > > > > > >>> 2422: "The total number of sourth routes."; > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.3.9 of RFC 9692 is titled > > > > > >>> "Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction". May we rephrase as follows? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original: > > > > > >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocol, such as BFD > > > > > >>> [RFC5881], flooding-reducing section 6.3.9 [I-D.ietf-rift-rift]. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > > > >>> Some features can be used to enhance protocols, such as BFD > > > > > >>> [RFC5881], with flooding reduction (Section 6.3.9 of [RFC9692]). > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 6) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence as follows for > > > > > >>> clarity? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original: > > > > > >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor's layer error should be notified. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > > > >>> Unexpected TIE and neighbor layer errors should be notified. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 7) <!--[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 title of Section 3 accordingly. Please review > > > > > >>> usage of "YANG model" within this document. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 8) <!--[rfced] In the YANG module, please clarify "system id > > > > > >>> using pattern" > > > > > >>> in the description of system-id. (In text as "System ID" to match > > > > > >>> RFC-to-be 9692.) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original: > > > > > >>> description > > > > > >>> "This type defines RIFT system id using pattern, > > > > > >>> the system id looks like: 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10"; > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > > > >>> description > > > > > >>> "This type defines the pattern for RIFT System IDs. > > > > > >>> An example of a System ID is 0021.2FFF.FEB5.6E10."; > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please note that the YANG module has been updated > > > > > >>> per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any > > > > > >>> concerns. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 10) <!--[rfced] Section 4. The text has been updated to exactly > > > > > >>> match the template for YANG module security considerations > > > > > >>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v8aiXi-w$ > > > > > >>> ). Please review. > > > > > >>> If additional changes are needed, please let us know. > > > > > >>> Specifically, the following text was updated. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original (paragraph 3): > > > > > >>> Writable data node represent configuration of each instance, node, > > > > > >>> interface, etc. These correspond to the following schema node: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Current: > > > > > >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ > > > > > >>> vulnerability: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> However, should it be updated to singular because one item is > > > > > >>> listed? > > > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > > > >>> This is the schema node and its sensitivity/vulnerability: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original (paragraph 11): > > > > > >>> Specifically, the > > > > > >>> following operations have particular sensitivities/ > > > > > >>> vulnerabilities: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Current: > > > > > >>> These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/ > > > > > >>> vulnerability: > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence; the original does > > > > > >>> not parse. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Original: > > > > > >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for the > > > > > >>> neighbor connection broken, will lead to the permanent connection > > > > > >>> broken. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > > > >>> The incorrect modification of authentication, except for the > > > > > >>> broken neighbor connection, will break the connection permanently. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > > > > > >>> the online Style Guide > > > > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide > > > > > >>> /part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZ > > > > > >>> dGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vIPOf > > > > > >>> lCg$ > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this > > > > > >>> nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful > > > > > >>> for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in > > > > > >>> particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. > > > > > >>> --> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> RFC Editor/mc/ar > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Jan 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Updated 2025/01/15 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> RFC Author(s): > > > > > >>> -------------- > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed > > > > > >>> and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an > > > > > >>> RFC. > > > > > >>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > > > > >>> available as listed in the FAQ > > > > > >>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5uo5Yt7oA$ > > > > > >>> ). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u3x1YHMw$ > > > > > >>> ). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v5AixMsQ$ > > > > > >>> >. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * 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 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing > > > > > >>> list > > > > > >>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > > > > >>> list: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * More info: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ > > > > > >>> ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QM > > > > > >>> aMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMw > > > > > >>> l9gFgmP5t2stZVIQ$ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * The archive itself: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/brow > > > > > >>> se/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma > > > > > >>> 7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sa9xeU7A$ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> * 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, > > > > > >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > > > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5shGew8YA$ > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71 > > > > > >>> YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5tGe1X-Ng$ > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > > > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vX_l0l4g$ > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71Y > > > > > >>> H5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sG1irukA$ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Diff file of the text: > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-K > > > > > >>> iRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5vJjrFaUQ$ > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma > > > > > >>> 7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5sX8aD9tA$ (side > > > > > >>> by side) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Diff of the XML: > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc > > > > > >>> 9719-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpm > > > > > >>> a7-KiRG71YH5mVZ6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5v9WZhdQA$ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Tracking progress > > > > > >>> ----------------- > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9 > > > > > >>> 719__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BYLSY0QMaMmHmCqNoQkWZdGaw_s3Vpma7-KiRG71YH5mVZ > > > > > >>> 6sp5c4hCkv6hmHhC0CwPshI2iOMwl9gFgmP5u8aKH7yQ$ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> RFC Editor > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -------------------------------------- > > > > > >>> RFC9719 (draft-ietf-rift-yang-17) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Title : YANG Data Model for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) > > > > > >>> Author(s) : Z. Zhang, Y. Wei, S. Ma, X. Liu, B. Rijsman > > > > > >>> WG Chair(s) : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang, Jeff Tantsura > > > > > >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
