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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

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.
> > > >
> > >
>
>