Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Well since you opened that bxo Kentn,

VRF does not stand as an abbreviation for "VPN Routing and Forwarding table
- that is incorrect.

VRF table == Virtual Routing and Forwarding table.

With that the brackets are not needed and the entire description already
deserves an errata :)

Thx,
R.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Alanna,
>
> A Minor nit came to my attention in Sec 1
> OLD: End.DT (table look up in VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF))
> NEW: End.DT (look up in VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) table)
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:58 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Bruno, Jorge, Ketan, and Shunwan,
>>
>> Thank you for your replies. Your approvals have been noted on the AUTH48
>> status page.
>>
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
>>
>> Once we have received approvals from Gaurav and Robert, 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,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 2022, at 5:10 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alanna, RFC Editor,
>> >
>> > I approve latest version.
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> > --Bruno
>> >
>> >
>> > Orange Restricted
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:41 PM
>> > To: Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
>> > Cc: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>;
>> Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <
>> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
>> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15>
>> for your review
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48
>> status page.
>> >
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
>> >
>> > We will await further word from the authors regarding updates and/or
>> approvals
>> > prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > RFC Editor/ap
>> >
>> >> On Jun 20, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Andrew Alston - IETF
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I’m ok with the changes to 3.1 and and the addition in section 2.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:22 PM
>> >> To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>;
>> Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>; Andrew Alston - IETF
>> <[e-mail]>
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
>> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252
>> <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review
>> >>
>> >> Ketan, Jorge, and *Andrew (AD),
>> >>
>> >> *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from “SHOULD” to
>> “MUST” in
>> >> Section 3.1, as well as the addition of “Layer 2 services” in Section
>> 2.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
>> >>
>> >> Ketan and Jorge - Thank you for your replies. We have updated
>> accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> FYI, we removed the following reference from the References section as
>> its only
>> >> occurrence was replaced with [RFC9012] in Section 1 per Ketan's
>> request.
>> >>
>> >> [BGP-SR-POLICY]
>> >> Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
>> >> P., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
>> >> Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
>> >> ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-17, 14 April 2022,
>> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
>> >> segment-routing-te-policy-17>.
>> >>
>> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
>> >>
>> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html (comprehensive
>> diff)
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
>> changes)
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
>> version to this one)
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html (last
>> version to this one side by side)
>> >>
>> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> RFC Editor/ap
>> >>
>> >>> On Jun 17, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alanna,
>> >>>
>> >>> I discussed offline with Ketan and we decided to modify a little bit
>> (for clarity) the second change that he suggested in his last email:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two occurrences),
>> 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
>> >>>
>> >>> OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the value
>> is set in the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL).
>> >>> NEW: it is set to Implicit NULL in the higher-order 20 bits (i.e., as
>> 0x000030). In either case, the value is set in the 24 bits.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let us know if you have questions.
>> >>> Thank you.
>> >>> Jorge
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
>> >>> Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 at 1:32 PM
>> >>> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> >>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>,
>> Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Bocci,
>> Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252
>> <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Alanna,
>> >>>
>> >>> There are 2 further changes based on the discussion below about the
>> original "high order 20 bits" error.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/VN3_pFg5CbB337SQYFKDubR_EQM/
>> >>>
>> >>> In sec 3.2.1
>> >>>
>> >>> OLD: SRv6 SID value and put into high order bits of the MPLS Label
>> field.
>> >>> NEW: SRv6 SID value and encoded in the MPLS Label field.
>> >>>
>> >>> For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two occurrences),
>> 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
>> >>>
>> >>> OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the value
>> is set in the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL).
>> >>> NEW: it is set to the Implicit NULL value (i.e., as 0x000030). In
>> either case, the value is set in the 24 bits.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Ketan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:13 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Hi Ketan,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for your reply. We updated the files as requested and have
>> >>> a couple of follow-up questions.
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) This suggested text needs further updating as the either/or
>> relationship
>> >>> is not parallel. Please review and let us know if option A or B
>> reflects the
>> >>> intended meaning.
>> >>>
>> >>> Suggested text:
>> >>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding of
>> >>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services TLVs, or
>> >>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
>> Locator)
>> >>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
>> >>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
>> >>> specific to that service encoding.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps (Moved “either” after allows):
>> >>> A) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows either 1) the
>> encoding of
>> >>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
>> >>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
>> Locator)
>> >>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
>> >>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
>> >>> specific to that service encoding.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or (Removed “either”):
>> >>> B) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding
>> of
>> >>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
>> >>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
>> Locator)
>> >>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
>> >>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
>> >>> specific to that service encoding.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2) Regarding the terminology, we have not made any changes to the
>> terms
>> >>> where you replied “Depends on the usage”. If any further updates are
>> required
>> >>> for these, please let us know.
>> >>>
>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
>> >>>
>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html (comprehensive
>> diff)
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
>> changes)
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
>> version to this one)
>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
>> version to this one 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 author and the AD 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/rfc9252
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you,
>> >>> RFC Editor/ap
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jun 16, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Alanna,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for resending and please check inline below for responses.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:45 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Ketan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The remaining unanswered queries are listed below.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Additionally, they can be seen in the XML file as comments marked
>> as: <!-- [rfced] ... —>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We notice that the Abstract and Introduction use
>> >>>> "SRv6-based BGP services" but the title and short title across
>> >>>> the header in the pdf use "SRv6 BGP-based Overlay
>> >>>> Services". Should the titles be updated per Option A or B below,
>> >>>> or should the text in the Abstract and Introduction be updated
>> >>>> to reflect "SRv6 BGP-based Overlay Services" for consistency?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also note that the abbreviations in the title have been expanded
>> >>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7332 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> A)
>> >>>> Title: BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
>> >>>> Short title: SRv6-Based BGP Overlay Services
>> >>>>
>> >>>> or
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B)
>> >>>> Title: Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Overlay Services Based on BGP
>> >>>> Short Title: SRv6 BGP-Based Overlay Services
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> (A) is more appropriate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2) <!--[rfced] In this sentence, does "them" refer to "mechanisms"
>> or "a variable
>> >>>> part"? Please review and let us know how to update.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for signaling of the SRv6 Service SID
>> >>>> by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and carrying
>> >>>> them in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more efficient packing
>> >>>> of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> A) (if referring to "mechanisms"):
>> >>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6 Service
>> >>>> SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and carrying
>> >>>> the mechanism in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more efficient
>> >>>> packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
>> >>>> Or
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B) (if referring to "a variable part"):
>> >>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6 Service
>> >>>> SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and carrying
>> >>>> the variable part in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more
>> efficient
>> >>>> packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> (B) is correct. Wouldn't "and carrying this variable part" be
>> better?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3) <!--[rfced] This sentence is a bit tough to read. Please review
>> the
>> >>>> suggested text and let us know if this is agreeable or if you
>> >>>> prefer otherwise.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows the encoding of
>> >>>> the SRv6 Service SID either as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
>> >>>> the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g., Locator)
>> >>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and encoding the variable (e.g., Function
>> >>>> or Argument parts) in the existing label fields specific to that
>> >>>> service encoding.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding of
>> >>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services TLVs or
>> >>>> the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g., Locator)
>> >>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and 2) the encoding of the variable
>> >>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
>> >>>> specific to that service encoding.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> I get your point. I think the following conveys the correct
>> meaning:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding of
>> >>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services TLVs, or
>> >>>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
>> Locator)
>> >>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
>> >>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
>> >>>> specific to that service encoding.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8950 includes "IPv4 VPN Unicast over
>> IPv6
>> >>>> Core" and "IPv4 VPN Multicast over IPv6 Core". Is "IPv4 VPN over
>> >>>> IPv6 Core" okay as is, or should it be updated to reflect either
>> >>>> of these forms?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
>> >>>> Over IPv6 Core defined in [RFC8950].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> A) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
>> >>>> unicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
>> >>>> multicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> (A) is correct.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 6) <!--[rfced] The following text mentions where Route Types
>> 1,2,3,5,6,7,
>> >>>> and 8 are defined, but it does not mention where Route Type 4 is
>> >>>> defined. Is this intentional, or would you like to include a
>> >>>> citation where Route Type 4 is defined? If so, please
>> >>>> provide that reference.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> [RFC7432] defines Route
>> >>>> Types 1, 2, and 3 which carry prefixes and MPLS Label fields; the
>> >>>> Label fields have a specific use for MPLS encapsulation of EVPN
>> >>>> traffic. Route Type 5 carrying MPLS label information (and thus
>> >>>> encapsulation information) for EVPN is defined in [RFC9136]. Route
>> >>>> Types 6, 7, and 8 are defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy].
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> The Route Type 4 is defined in RFC7432 (
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html#section-7.4). We don't need
>> to refer to it and hence citation is also not required. This is because
>> that route type advertisement is unchanged from the base spec RFC7432. The
>> original text is therefore intentional.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 7) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence from "point-to-point
>> >>>> services ID" to "point-to-point service IDs"?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN-
>> >>>> VPWS as well as in EVPN flexible cross-connect; mainly used to
>> >>>> advertise point-to-point services ID.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN-
>> >>>> VPWS as well as in EVPN-flexible cross-connect, mainly to
>> >>>> advertise point-to-point service IDs.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack. Your suggestion above is better than the original.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 8) <!--[rfced] We have included some specific information about the
>> IANA
>> >>>> text below (mainly FYIs). In addition to reviewing those changes,
>> please
>> >>>> review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know
>> >>>> if any further updates are needed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A) FYI: For values 5 and 6, the Type names do not include "TLV" in
>> the
>> >>>> "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" subregistry. We will ask IANA to add "TLV"
>> >>>> to the subregistry accordingly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Current (Table 1):
>> >>>> | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
>> >>>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>> >>>> | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Current (IANA registry):
>> >>>> | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service | RFC 9252 |
>> >>>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
>> >>>> | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service | RFC 9252 |
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B) FYI: The registration procedures in Tables 2 and 4 do not match
>> IANA's
>> >>>> registration procedures under the "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types" and
>> >>>> "SRv6 Service Sub-Sub-TLV Types" subregistries. We updated these
>> >>>> tables to match the registries by changing the "Value" and "Type"
>> >>>> headings to "Range" and "Registration Procedures", respectively;
>> >>>> moving the value "0" and its corresponding information to Tables 3
>> >>>> and 5; and changing "Reserved" to "IETF Review" for value 255.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> Value Type
>> >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> >>>> 0 Reserved
>> >>>> 0-127 IETF Review
>> >>>> 128-254 First Come First Served
>> >>>> 255 Reserved
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Current (for Tables 2 and 4):
>> >>>> Range Registration Procedures
>> >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> >>>> 0-127 IETF Review
>> >>>> 128-254 First Come First Served
>> >>>> 255 IETF Review
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> C) FYI: Tables 3 and 5 have been updated to match the
>> >>>> relevant IANA registries. Please review.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 9) <!--[rfced] May we update "SRv6 SID Endpoint" to be "SRv6
>> Endpoint" to
>> >>>> reflect usage throughout the document?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Original:
>> >>>> The SRv6 SID Endpoint behaviors implementing the services signalled
>> >>>> in this document are defined in [RFC8986] and hence the security
>> >>>> considerations of that document apply.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps:
>> >>>> The SRv6 Endpoint behaviors implementing the services signaled
>> >>>> in this document are defined in [RFC8986]; hence, the security
>> >>>> considerations of that document apply.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack. Your suggested change is better than the original.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI: The following reference has been deleted from
>> the
>> >>>> References section as it was only mentioned within the
>> >>>> Implementation Status section, which has been deleted per your
>> >>>> request.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Removed:
>> >>>> [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]
>> >>>> Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., Rajaraman,
>> >>>> K., and A. Dhamija, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment
>> >>>> Status", draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-13
>> >>>> (work in progress), March 2022.
>> >>>> -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Ack
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 11) <!--[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. Note that our script
>> >>>> did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be
>> >>>> reviewed as a best practice. -->
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Looks good to me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 12) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology
>> appears to be used
>> >>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know
>> if/how they
>> >>>> may be made consistent.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> In general, when referring to the name of a field, TLV/sub-TLV,
>> SID, etc. we have used the capitalized versions. In other places, as
>> "normal text", there should not be capitalization.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - SRv6 Service vs. SRv6 service
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Depends on the usage
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - MPLS Label field vs. MPLS label field
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> "MPLS Label field" since we are referring to the name of a field.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Endpoint Behavior vs. Endpoint behavior vs. endpoint behavior
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> I would think in almost all cases, "Endpoint Behavior" would be
>> more appropriate - but please correct me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - BGP Service vs. BGP service
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Depends on the usage
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Transposition Offset vs. transposition offset
>> >>>> - Transposition Length vs. transposition length
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Depends on the usage.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Transposition Scheme vs. transposition scheme
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> The capitalized version was used because we are referring to the
>> name of the scheme.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> There is an error in the draft that has been thankfully caught
>> by a WG participant that we would like to fix. Please see the thread here:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/puPdmGwKmmGMJaA_eW_vOM6Bk-k/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The following change is required in the following places:
>> >>>> - 6.1.1 para 2
>> >>>> - 6.1.2 para 2
>> >>>> - 6.2 para 4 and 5
>> >>>> - 6.2.1 para 1
>> >>>> - 6.2.2 para 1 and 2
>> >>>> - 6.5 para 4
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OLD: the value is set in the high order 20 bits
>> >>>> NEW: the value is set in the 24 bits
>> >>>>
>> >>>> KT> Additionally, I would like to suggest the following editorial
>> changes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OLD: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
>> >>>> NEW: If this is going to be replaced by RFC number since it is also
>> in the RFCed Q, then that is ok. If not, I would suggest
>> [SEGMENT-ROUTING-POLICY].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OLD: [IDR-SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
>> >>>> NEW: [BGP-SR-POLICY]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OLD: [LSR-FLEX-ALGO]
>> >>>> NEW: [IGP-FLEX-ALGO]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am yet to do a full review pass and will do so once these updates
>> have been incorporated on the full diff against the original text.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Ketan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> —>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best regards,
>> >>>> RFC Editor/ap
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Jun 15, 2022, at 11:28 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Alanna,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> For some reason, I am unable to locate your first email (the one
>> with the questions?) in my mailbox. Could you please resend it?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>> Ketan
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:28 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Authors and *Andrew (AD),
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from “SHOULD”
>> to “MUST” in
>> >>>>> Section 3.1 in the diff file below.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Note that Bruno’s response only answered query 4). Please review
>> our previous mail
>> >>>>> (sent on June 10, 2022) to review and respond the the remaining
>> queries.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
>> (comprehensive diff)
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html (all
>> AUTH48 changes)
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html
>> (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html
>> (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once
>> >>>>> published as RFCs.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We will await responses to our queries and any further changes you
>> may have, as well as
>> >>>>> approvals from each author and the *AD prior to moving forward in
>> the publication process.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:16 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> *Andrew, ADs, Ketan 1rst & 2nd questions are for you. And checking
>> the 3rd would be safer. Thanks.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi RFC Editor, all,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks for the work.
>> >>>>>> I've reviewed the diff and the full text.
>> >>>>>> Please find below some proposed changes.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----
>> >>>>>> §3.1
>> >>>>>> In this doc, the semantic of all reserved fields are specified as
>> MUST on the sender side, and MUST on the receiver side. (which is my
>> personal preference, but I ignore if there is an IETF guideline on this)
>> e.g.
>> >>>>>> " RESERVED1 (1 octet):
>> >>>>>> This field MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the
>> >>>>>> receiver."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> except the following text which is specified as SHOULD, MUST:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> " SRv6 Service SID Flags (1 octet):
>> >>>>>> This field encodes SRv6 Service SID Flags -- none are currently
>> >>>>>> defined. It SHOULD be set to 0 by the sender and any unknown
>> >>>>>> flags MUST be ignored by the receiver."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For consistency in this doc, I would propose
>> >>>>>> OLD: SHOULD
>> >>>>>> NEW: MUST
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----
>> >>>>>> §5
>> >>>>>> " For service over SRv6 core, the egress PE sets the next hop to
>> one of its IPv6 addresses."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> May be a personal preference, but I would prefer to make it
>> explicit that "next hop" refers to the BGP Next Hop, as otherwise it would
>> potentially be understood as the forwarding next hop of the egress PE
>> (toward its CE), especially since the long previous paragraph refers to
>> routing tables rather than BGP messages.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD: the egress PE sets the next hop
>> >>>>>> NEW: the egress PE sets the BGP Next Hop
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> (next hop, next-hop, Next-Hop or whatever is usually used equally
>> works for me)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -------
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> §10.2
>> >>>>>> " [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
>> >>>>>> Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
>> >>>>>> A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
>> >>>>>> Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-
>> >>>>>> segment-routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
>> >>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
>> >>>>>> segment-routing-policy-22>.
>> >>>>>> "
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The name of the reference seems (extremely) misleading to me. I
>> would assume a typo
>> >>>>>> OLD: [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
>> >>>>>> NEW: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -------
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> §2
>> >>>>>> " TLV Type (1 octet):
>> >>>>>> This field is assigned values from IANA's "BGP Prefix-SID TLV
>> >>>>>> Types" subregistry."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD: values
>> >>>>>> NEW: a value
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----
>> >>>>>> "Any unrecognized, received Sub-TLVs and Sub-Sub-TLVs MUST be
>> removed."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Personally I would not put a comma. But English typo is definitely
>> not my expertise. So totally up to you.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----
>> >>>>>> §3
>> >>>>>> "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
>> >>>>>> This field identifies the type of SRv6 service information. It is
>> >>>>>> assigned values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types"
>> >>>>>> subregistry."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD: values
>> >>>>>> NEW: a value
>> >>>>>> -----
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> §3.2
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
>> >>>>>> This field identifies the type of Sub-Sub-TLV. It is assigned
>> >>>>>> values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types"
>> >>>>>> subregistry.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD: values
>> >>>>>> NEW: a value
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ----
>> >>>>>> §3.2.1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> " While for an SRv6
>> >>>>>> SID, where the FL is 24 bits and only the lower order 20 bits are
>> >>>>>> transposed (e.g., due to the limit of the MPLS label field size),
>> the
>> >>>>>> transposition offset is set to 68 and the transposition length is
>> set
>> >>>>>> to 20."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I would not put the first comma. And I could rather use "for
>> which" rather than "where"
>> >>>>>> OLD: While for an SRv6 SID, where the FL is 24 bits
>> >>>>>> NEW: While for an SRv6SID for which the FL is 24 bits
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> However English is not my first language, so totally up to you.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -----
>> >>>>>> §5
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD: When the BGP route is received at an ingress PE is colored
>> with a
>> >>>>>> Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6 Policy is available, the
>> >>>>>> steering for service flows is performed, as described in Section 8
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> NEW: When the BGP route received at an ingress PE is colored with a
>> >>>>>> Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6 Policy is available, the
>> >>>>>> steering for service flows is performed as described in Section 8
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> i.e.
>> >>>>>> :s/is received/received
>> >>>>>> :s/is performed, as described/ is performed as described
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> §6
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Idem above. (except that the 2nd correction is already in place)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>> --Bruno
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Orange Restricted
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 10:56 PM
>> >>>>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail];[e-mail]
>> >>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>> Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15>
>> for your review
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Updated 2022/06/10
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 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://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * Formatted output
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>> >>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>> >>>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>> >>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Submitting changes
>> >>>>>> ------------------
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as
>> all
>> >>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>> parties
>> >>>>>> include:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * your coauthors
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>> >>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>> >>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing
>> list
>> >>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>> >>>>>> list:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * More info:
>> >>>>>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * The archive itself:
>> >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>> >>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>> >>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>> >>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>> >>>>>> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>> >>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>> >>>>>> — OR —
>> >>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> OLD:
>> >>>>>> old text
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> NEW:
>> >>>>>> new text
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>> explicit
>> >>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
>> that seem
>> >>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion
>> of text,
>> >>>>>> and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be
>> found in
>> >>>>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
>> manager.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Approving for publication
>> >>>>>> --------------------------
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
>> stating
>> >>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>> >>>>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Files
>> >>>>>> -----
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The files are available here:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-rfcdiff.html (side by
>> side)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-xmldiff1.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your
>> own
>> >>>>>> diff files of the XML.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.original.v2v3.xml
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
>> updates
>> >>>>>> only:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.form.xml
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tracking progress
>> >>>>>> -----------------
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> RFC Editor
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------
>> >>>>>> RFC9252 (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Title : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
>> >>>>>> Author(s) : G. Dawra, Ed., K. Talaulikar, Ed., R. Raszuk, B.
>> Decraene, S. Zhuang, J. Rabadan
>> >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski
>> >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> >>>>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> >>>>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> >>>>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> >>>>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without
>> authorisation.
>> >>>>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>> >>>>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> >>>>>> Thank you.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
>> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
>> ou falsifie. Merci.
>> >
>> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>> information that may be protected by law;
>> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> delete this message and its attachments.
>> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>> > Thank you.
>> >
>>
>>
>>