Hi Alice,
please see inline (##PP):
On 17/02/2026 01:30, [email protected] wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use onhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Specifically, please make the
statements about OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 parallel. Is is accurate that the first
two mechanisms are for OSPFv2, and the last one is for OSPFv3?
Original:
In OSPFv2 using the cost of MaxLinkMetric for all
non-stub links in the router-LSA [RFC6987], or H-bit [RFC8770], and
R-bit for OSPFv3 [RFC5340] are mechanisms available for that purpose.
Perhaps:
The mechanisms available for that purpose are (in OSPFv2) using the cost
of MaxLinkMetric for all non-stub links in the router-LSA [RFC6987] or using
the H-bit [RFC8770], or (in OSPFv3 [RFC5340]) using the R-bit.
-->
##PP
Ack
3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify item 1.
Original:
1. Reachability of a prefix that was reachable earlier was lost.
Perhaps:
1. A prefix that was reachable earlier is now lost (i.e., no longer
reachable).
-->
##PP
I would prefer:
"A prefix that was reachable earlier becomes unreachable"
4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify item 2. Why is the first item "if"?
Is the second item dependent on the first "if" clause? If so, we
suggest putting them together.
Original:
2. For any of the planned maintenance cases:
- if the node originating the prefix is signalling the
overload state in IS-IS, or or H-bit in OSPFv2 [RFC8770], or
R-bit in OSPFv3 [RFC5340] .
- the metric to reach the prefix from an ABR or ASBR crosses
the configured threshold.
Perhaps:
For any of the planned maintenance cases, if the node originating the
prefix is signaling the overload state in IS-IS, or is using the H-bit
in OSPFv2 [RFC8770] or the R-bit in OSPFv3 [RFC5340], then the metric
to reach the prefix from an ABR or ASBR crosses the configured
threshold.
-->
##PP
no, above is not right.
- please keep it as two independent statements
- please remove the "if" in the first statement
5) <!--[rfced] Should this be plural "databases"?
Original:
Not withdrawing the UPA would result in
stale information being kept in the link state database of all
routers in the area.
Perhaps:
Not withdrawing the UPA would result in
stale information being kept in the link state databases of all
routers in the area.
##PP
Above is fine, please use that.
Or rephrase:
Withdrawing the UPA prevents the LSDB from holding stale
information about all routers in the area.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Does "preceding section" refer to Section 2 or Section 3? We
suggest updating the text to use the section number.
Original (Section 3.1):
As per the definitions referenced in the preceding section, any
prefix advertisement with a metric value ...
Perhaps:
As per the definitions referenced in Section 3, any
prefix advertisement with a metric value ...
-->
##PP
Ack.
7) <!-- [rfced] How may this paragraph be rephrased for clarity?
Original (Section 3.2):
In IS-IS a prefix can be advertised with metric higher than
0xFE000000, for various reasons. Even though in all cases the
treatment of such metric is specified for IS-IS, having an explicit
way to signal that the prefix was advertised in order to signal UPA
is required to distinguish it from other cases where the prefix with
such metric is advertised.
Perhaps:
In IS-IS, a prefix can be advertised with a metric higher than
0xFE000000, for various reasons.
While IS-IS specifies the treatment of such metrics, explicit
signaling is required to distinguish UPA from other high-metric
advertisements.
-->
##PP
Ack
8) <!--[rfced] Similarly, how may this paragraph be rephrased for clarity?
Original (Section 4.2):
In OSPFv2 a prefix can be advertised with metric LSInfinity, or in
OSPFv3 with NU-bit set in PrefixOptions, for various reasons. Even
though in all cases the treatment of such metric, or NU-bit, is
specified for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, having an explicit way to signal
that the prefix was advertised in order to signal UPA is required to
distinguish it from other cases where the prefix with such metric is
advertised.
Perhaps:
A prefix can be advertised (in OSPFv2) with the LSInfinity metric or
(in OSPFv3) with the NU-bit set in PrefixOptions, for various reasons.
While OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 specify the treatment of the LSInfinity metric
and the NU-bit, explicit signaling is required to distinguish UPA
from other scenarios using the LSInfinity metric or NU-bit.
-->
##PP
Ack
9) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated this TLV name to match the name used in the
IANA Considerations. Please let us know if this is not accurate.
Original: Prefix Attributes Sub-TLV
Current: Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
-->
##PP
Ack
10) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular the opening phrase.
Original:
For default algorithm 0
prefixes with U-Flag it is therefore REQUIRED to advertise the
unreachable prefix in the base OSPFv2 LSA - e.g., OSPFv2 Summary-LSA
[RFC2328], or AS-external-LSAs [RFC2328], or NSSA AS-external LSA
[RFC3101].
Perhaps:
Therefore, for the default algorithm 0 with prefixes advertised with U-Flag,
it is REQUIRED to advertise the
unreachable prefix in the base OSPFv2 LSA - e.g., OSPFv2 Summary-LSA
[RFC2328], AS-external-LSAs [RFC2328], or NSSA AS-external LSA
[RFC3101].
##PP
We need to correct the initial sentence of that section to include both
new bits:
So the entire section should read as:
"The prefix that is advertised with U-Flag or UP-Flag MUST have the
metric set to a value LSInfinity.
If the prefix metric is not equal to LSInfinity, both of these flags
MUST be ignored. Therefore, for the prefixes in default algorithm 0 that
are advertised with U-Flag, or Up-Flag, it is REQUIRED to advertise the
unreachable prefix in the base OSPFv2 LSA - e.g., OSPFv2 Summary-LSA
[RFC2328], AS-external-LSAs [RFC2328], or NSSA AS-external LSA [RFC3101]."
Regarding a similar phrase in Section 4.2.2, may it be updated as follows?
Original:
For default algorithm 0 prefixes,
the LSInfinity MUST be set in the parent TLV.
Perhaps:
For prefixes in default algorithm 0,
the LSInfinity MUST be set in the parent TLV.
##PP
Above sounds good.
Or:
When advertising prefix reachability in default algorithm 0,
the LSInfinity MUST be set in the parent TLV.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to keep these TLV names as they are, or change to
match how they appear in RFC 8362?
This document:
Intra-Area Prefix TLV
Inter-Area Prefix TLV
External Prefix TLV
[RFC8362] and the corresponding IANA registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#extended-lsa-tlvs)
use the following (with an additional hyphen in each):
Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
External-Prefix TLV
-->
##PP
Please use the RFC8362 naming as you suggested above.
12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Please consider whether "traditionally" should be updated for clarity.
While the NIST website
<https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Traditionally" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->
##PP
please remove the "traditionally" from the text.
thanks, Peter
Thank you.
Alice Russo
RFC Production Center
On Feb 16, 2026,[email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/02/16
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
*[email protected] (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).
*[email protected], 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,
[email protected] 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/rfc9929.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9929-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9929
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9929 (draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-11)
Title : IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement
Author(s) : P. Psenak, Ed., C. Filsfils, D. Voyer, S. Hegde, G. Mishra
WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
