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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>