Hi Alanna, These changes are complete:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#metric-object-t-field Thanks, Sabrina On Fri Feb 27 19:12:33 2026, [email protected] wrote: > IANA, > > Please update the capitalizations and hyphenation in the following > descriptions in the “METRIC Object T Field” registry > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#metric-object-t- > field>. > > Old: > Value Description > 22 Path Min Delay Metric > 23 P2MP Path Min Delay Metric > 24 Path Bandwidth Metric > 25 P2MP Path Bandwidth Metric > 128-255 User Defined Metric > > New: > Value Description > 22 Path Min Delay metric > 23 P2MP Path Min Delay metric > 24 Path Bandwidth metric > 25 P2MP Path Bandwidth metric > 128-255 User-defined metric > > Diff file is here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff.html > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Feb 27, 2026, at 11:09 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected] > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > Zoey’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > > > > Now that we’ve received approvals from each author, we will ask IANA > > to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are > > complete, we will move forward with the publication process. > > > > Thank you, > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > > > >> On Feb 27, 2026, at 10:13 AM, Zoey Rose (atokar) <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alanna, > >> > >> Many thanks for the updates! It looks good to me as well and I > >> approve the changes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zoey > >> > >> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > >> Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 at 10:40 AM > >> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Pengshuping (Peng > >> Shuping) <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]>, rfc-editor@rfc- > >> editor.org <[email protected]>, Zoey Rose (atokar) > >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce- > >> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >> [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> for > >> your review > >> > >> Hi Shaofu, Shuping, and Samuel, > >> > >> Thank you for your replies. Your approvals have been noted: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > >> > >> Once we receive Zoey’s approval, we will move this document forward > >> in the publication process. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Alanna Paloma > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 27, 2026, at 12:19 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Allana, > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot for your work. The diff looks fine to me and I’m > >>> approving the changes for publication. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Samuel > >>> > >>> From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Friday, 27 February 2026 at 05:12 > >>> To: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]>, Alanna Paloma > >>> <[email protected]>, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zoey > >>> Rose (atokar) <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce- > >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >>> [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > >>> for your review > >>> > >>> Hi Alanna, > >>> Many thanks for your work! > >>> I have gone through the diffs and approve all the changes for > >>> publication. > >>> Thank you! > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Shuping > >>> From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 7:11 AM > >>> To: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>; Samuel Sidor > >>> (ssidor) <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected]; Zoey Rose (atokar) > >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Pengshuping (Peng > >>> Shuping) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; pce- > >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > >>> [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > >>> for your review > >>> Hi RFC Editor, > >>> As co-author, I have gone through the comprehensive diff and > >>> approve of the changes for publication. > >>> Thank you! > >>> Andrew > >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 1:00 PM > >>> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zoey > >>> Rose (atokar) <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>, Andrew Stone (Nokia) > >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce- > >>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >>> [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > >>> for your review > >>> > >>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when > >>> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for > >>> additional information. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Samuel, > >>> > >>> Thank you for confirming. We’ve updated those notes accordingly. > >>> > >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.xml > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.pdf > >>> > >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff .html > >>> (comprehensive diff) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > >>> changes) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-lastdiff.html (last > >>> version to this one) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-lastrfcdiff.html > >>> (rfcdiff between last version and this) > >>> > >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status > >>> page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication > >>> process. > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Alanna Paloma > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>> On Feb 24, 2026, at 3:47 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks a lot, Allana, > >>>> > >>>> I missed those originally. All 3 instances can be marked with > >>>> <aside>. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Samuel > >>>> > >>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > >>>> Date: Monday, 23 February 2026 at 19:52 > >>>> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zoey > >>>> Rose (atokar) <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > >>>> for your review > >>>> > >>>> Hi Samuel, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested and have > >>>> one follow-up question. > >>>> > >>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this > >>>>> document > >>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container > >>>>> for > >>>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > >>>>> content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml- > >>>>> vocabulary#aside). > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> I don't see any such note. > >>>> > >>>> ) We see the following notes: > >>>> > >>>> Section 3: > >>>> Note: In SRv6, the BSID can be allocated > >>>> from an algorithm-specific SRv6 Locator, which will result in > >>>> the > >>>> path to that BSID PCC node following that algorithm-specific > >>>> path. > >>>> > >>>> Section 4.3: > >>>> Note: The Subobject Extension Block is applicable to the SRv6- > >>>> ERO > >>>> subobject but is not required by this specific specification as > >>>> existing reserved space is used. When additional space is needed > >>>> in > >>>> the SRv6-ERO subobject, the future extensions SHOULD specify the > >>>> usage of the Subobject Extension Block for the SRv6-ERO > >>>> subobject. > >>>> > >>>> Section 4.5.2.1: > >>>> Note: The link Bandwidth Metric utilized in the formula may be > >>>> the original metric advertised on the link, which may have a > >>>> value > >>>> inversely proportional to the link capacity. > >>>> > >>>> Please let us know if the <aside> element should be used for any > >>>> of these instances. > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.xml > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.txt > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.html > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.pdf > >>>> > >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff.html > >>>> (comprehensive diff) > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > >>>> changes) > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) > >>>> > >>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any > >>>> further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes > >>>> once a document is published as an RFC. > >>>> > >>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 > >>>> status page below prior to moving this document forward in the > >>>> publication process. > >>>> > >>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > >>>> > >>>> Thank you, > >>>> Alanna Paloma > >>>> RFC Production Center > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:30 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi RFC Editor, > >>>>> > >>>>> Please find responses inline <S>. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks a lot, > >>>>> Samuel > >>>>> > >>>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>>> Date: Friday, 20 February 2026 at 01:23 > >>>>> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Zoey Rose (atokar) > >>>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce- > >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <pce- > >>>>> [email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, auth48archive@rfc- > >>>>> editor.org <[email protected]> > >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> > >>>>> for your review > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S>"Prefix-SID Algorithm", "Flexible Algorithm", "IGP Algorithm > >>>>> Types" > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] FYI - We removed the first paragraph in Section 2 > >>>>> as it > >>>>> repeats the same information in the second paragraph. Please let > >>>>> us > >>>>> know of any objections. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: > >>>>> ERO, > >>>>> LSPA, PCC, PCE, PCEP, PCEP Peer, PCEP speaker, RRO, TED. > >>>>> > >>>>> This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: > >>>>> Explicit > >>>>> Route Object (ERO), Label Switched Path Attributes (LSPA), Path > >>>>> Computation Client (PCC), Path Computation Element (PCE), Path > >>>>> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), PCEP Peer, > >>>>> PCEP > >>>>> speaker, Record Route Object (RRO), and Traffic Engineering > >>>>> Database > >>>>> (TED). > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Thanks for remoing it > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] To parallel the structure of the first two bullet > >>>>> items, may > >>>>> we update the latter two bullet items as follows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> * Define a new SEBF in the Flags field to indicate the > >>>>> presence of > >>>>> new extension, and specify the corresponding capability > >>>>> signaling > >>>>> for that extension. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Specify which parts of the reserved/extension block are used > >>>>> and > >>>>> how the block length is calculated when their extension is > >>>>> present. > >>>>> > >>>>> * The reserved bits in the initial 4 bytes are used when > >>>>> possible, > >>>>> and the block is extended only when additional space is > >>>>> necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Future extensions may define additional SEBFs and > >>>>> corresponding > >>>>> fields, allowing the block to be increased in size beyond the > >>>>> initial 4 bytes as needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> * Define a new SEBF in the Flags field to indicate the > >>>>> presence of > >>>>> a new extension and specify the corresponding capability > >>>>> signaling > >>>>> for that extension. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Specify which parts of the reserved/extension block are used > >>>>> and > >>>>> how the block length is calculated when their extension is > >>>>> present. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Ensure the reserved bits in the initial 4 bytes are used when > >>>>> possible > >>>>> and the block is extended only when additional space is > >>>>> necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> * Have future extensions define additional SEBFs and > >>>>> corresponding > >>>>> fields, allowing the block to be increased in size beyond the > >>>>> initial 4 bytes as needed. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Looks fine to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "PCInitiate, PCUpd > >>>>> messages" to > >>>>> "PCInitiate or PCUpd messages"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> If a PCC receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV as part > >>>>> of > >>>>> PCInitiate, PCUpd messages, then it MUST include LSPA object > >>>>> with SR- > >>>>> Algorithm TLV in PCRpt message as part of intended-attribute- > >>>>> list. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> If a PCC receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV as part > >>>>> of > >>>>> PCInitiate or PCUpd messages, then it MUST include LSPA object > >>>>> with SR- > >>>>> Algorithm TLV in PCRpt message as part of intended-attribute- > >>>>> list. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Yes, please update. > >>>>> > >>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] May we update the punctuation in the latter part > >>>>> of this > >>>>> sentence to clarify that it is a list of what is used? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> If the PCE is unable to find a path with the given SR-Algorithm > >>>>> constraint, it does not support a combination of specified > >>>>> constraints or if the FAD contains constraints, optimization > >>>>> metric > >>>>> or other attributes, which the PCE does not support or > >>>>> recognize, it > >>>>> MUST use an empty ERO in PCInitiate for LSP instantiation or > >>>>> PCUpd > >>>>> message if an update is required or NO-PATH object in PCRep to > >>>>> indicate that it was not able to find the valid path. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> If the PCE is unable to find a path with the given SR-Algorithm > >>>>> constraint, it does not support a combination of specified > >>>>> constraints or if the FAD contains constraints, optimization > >>>>> metrics, > >>>>> or other attributes, which the PCE does not support or > >>>>> recognize, it > >>>>> MUST use an empty ERO in PCInitiate for LSP instantiation, a > >>>>> PCUpd > >>>>> message if an update is required, or a NO-PATH object in PCRep > >>>>> to > >>>>> indicate that it was not able to find the valid path. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Sure, looks fine. > >>>>> > >>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] This note was left in the document: > >>>>> > >>>>> [Note to RFC Editor: The URL of the "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path > >>>>> Computation Rules Registry" IANA registry to be inserted once it > >>>>> will > >>>>> get created after approval of > >>>>> [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity].] > >>>>> > >>>>> Would you like an informative reference or an inline URL to be > >>>>> added > >>>>> for the "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" registry > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity] created an IANA > >>>>> registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules > >>>>> Registry" > >>>>> within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" > >>>>> registry > >>>>> group with the ordered set of rules that MUST be used to prune > >>>>> links > >>>>> from the topology during the Flexible Algorithm path > >>>>> computation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps A (with an informative reference): > >>>>> [RFC9917] created an IANA > >>>>> registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" > >>>>> [IANA-IGP-RULES] > >>>>> within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" > >>>>> registry > >>>>> group with the ordered set of rules that MUST be used to prune > >>>>> links > >>>>> from the topology during the Flexible Algorithm path > >>>>> computation. > >>>>> ... > >>>>> [IANA-IGP-Rules] > >>>>> IANA, "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules", > >>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters>. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps B (with inline URL): > >>>>> [RFC9917] created an IANA > >>>>> registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" > >>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters> within the > >>>>> "Interior > >>>>> Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry group with the > >>>>> ordered set > >>>>> of rules that MUST be used to prune links from the topology > >>>>> during the > >>>>> Flexible Algorithm path computation. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Inline URL (option B) looks better to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8281 does not list any > >>>>> "manageability > >>>>> requirements and considerations". All other RFCs in this sentence > >>>>> have a specific section about that topic. May we remove RFC 8281 > >>>>> from the list? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> All manageability requirements and considerations listed in > >>>>> [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8664] and [RFC9603] apply > >>>>> to the > >>>>> PCEP extensions defined in this document. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Thanks for finding it, please drop it. > >>>>> > >>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Regarding [IEEE.754.2008], this IEEE Standard has > >>>>> been > >>>>> superseded by a newer version published in 2019 > >>>>> (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229). Would you like us > >>>>> to > >>>>> update this reference to point to the most current version? > >>>>> > >>>>> Current: > >>>>> [IEEE.754.2008] > >>>>> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", > >>>>> IEEE > >>>>> Std 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935, > >>>>> August > >>>>> 2008, > >>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935>. > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> [IEEE.754.2019] > >>>>> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", > >>>>> IEEE > >>>>> Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229, July > >>>>> 2019, > >>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229>. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> Yes, please update to version published in 2019. > >>>>> > >>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this > >>>>> document > >>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container > >>>>> for > >>>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > >>>>> content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml- > >>>>> vocabulary#aside). > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> I don't see any such note. > >>>>> > >>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Terminology > >>>>> > >>>>> a) We note that "object" and "Object" are both used throughout > >>>>> the document. > >>>>> Please review the terms below and let us know if/how this > >>>>> capitalization should > >>>>> be made consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>> METRIC object vs. METRIC Object > >>>>> > >>>>> LSPA Object vs. LSPA object > >>>>> PCEP Object > >>>>> LSP Object > >>>>> NO-PATH object > >>>>> BANDWIDTH Object (FYI - We capitalized "Bandwidth" to reflect > >>>>> usage in RFC 5440.) > >>>>> <S> Please keep "Object" in section titles and name of IANA > >>>>> registry (e.g. "METRIC Object T Field", otherwise "object" can be > >>>>> used. > >>>>> > >>>>> b) Similar to above, we note that "metric" and "Metric" are both > >>>>> used throughout > >>>>> the document. Please review the terms below and let us know > >>>>> if/how this > >>>>> capitalization should be made consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>> Path Min Delay metric vs. Path Min Delay Metric > >>>>> P2MP Path Min Delay metric vs. P2MP Path Min Delay Metric > >>>>> Path Bandwidth Metric vs. Path Bandwidth metric > >>>>> P2MP Path Bandwidth Metric vs. P2MP Path Bandwidth metric > >>>>> User-defined metric vs. User Defined metric vs. User Defined > >>>>> Metric > >>>>> Link Delay metric > >>>>> Path Min Link Delay metric > >>>>> Min Link Delay metric > >>>>> P2P Path Min Delay metric > >>>>> Bandwidth Metric vs. Bandwidth metric vs. bandwidth metric > >>>>> P2P Bandwidth metric > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S>Please change to "metric" instead of "Metric" except section > >>>>> titles (Value in IANA registry needs to be updated based on that > >>>>> as well). > >>>>> > >>>>> For "User-defined" vs "User Defined" -> Please use "User-defined" > >>>>> > >>>>> For "Bandwidth Metric vs. Bandwidth metric vs. bandwidth metric" > >>>>> -> Please use "Bandwidth metric" > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations > >>>>> > >>>>> a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are > >>>>> used > >>>>> throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the > >>>>> expansion > >>>>> upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document for > >>>>> consistency? > >>>>> > >>>>> Binding SID (BSID) > >>>>> Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) > >>>>> Path Setup Type (PST) > >>>>> Segment Routing (SR) > >>>>> > >>>>> b) FYI - We have expanded the following abbreviation per Section > >>>>> 3.6 of > >>>>> RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the > >>>>> document > >>>>> carefully to ensure correctness. > >>>>> > >>>>> BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> > >>>>> a) Yes, please use expansion upon first usage and the acronym for > >>>>> the rest of the document. > >>>>> b) Looks fine to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but > >>>>> this should > >>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice. > >>>>> --> > >>>>> > >>>>> <S> No changes required. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo > >>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>> On Feb 19, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > >>>>> > >>>>> Updated 2026/02/19 > >>>>> > >>>>> 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/rfc9933.xml > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.html > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.pdf > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.txt > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff.html > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-rfcdiff.html (side by > >>>>> side) > >>>>> > >>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-xmldiff1.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>> ----------------- > >>>>> > >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>> > >>>>> RFC Editor > >>>>> > >>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>> RFC9933 (draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29) > >>>>> > >>>>> Title : Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation > >>>>> Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) > >>>>> Author(s) : S. Sidor, Z. Rose, S. Peng, S. Peng, A. Stone > >>>>> WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > >>>>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de > >>>>> Velde > >>>> > >> > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
