Hi Madison, Thanks for the update. It looks good to me. I'd like to approve this document.
I appreciate your efforts, help, and support. Best, - Xufeng On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:16 AM Madison Church < mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
