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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Alanna.


On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:33 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Apologies for the delay. This document will be published later today.
>
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
> > On Jul 18, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alanna,
> >
> > This is just a quick check on the status of the publication of this
> document. Is it awaiting some dependencies to be resolved?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 9:21 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > The updates to the IANA registry are now complete. We will move this
> document forward in the publication process at this time.
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >
> > Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process.
> >
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> > > On Jul 1, 2022, at 4:12 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Sorry about the delay. This change has been made:
> > >
> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Amanda Baber
> > > IANA Operations Manager
> >
> > > On Jun 28, 2022, at 9:24 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Gaurav,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48
> status page:
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> > >
> > > We will now ask IANA to update their registry, and we will move
> forward with the
> > > publication process after these updates are complete.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/ap
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Jun 24, 2022, at 9:51 PM, Gaurav Dawra <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Approved.
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>
> > >>> On Jun 24, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Ketan and Robert,
> > >>>
> > >>> We have updated our files accordingly.
> > >>>
> > >>> We will await approval from Gaurav before asking IANA to update
> their registry accordingly.
> > >>> When the IANA update is complete, we will move forward with the
> publication process.
> > >>>
> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> > >>>
> > >>> 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)
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you,
> > >>> RFC Editor/ap
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:35 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>