Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 20 November 2023 17:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79494C1519A3; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:54:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTpmCcQGJjPL; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF114C151983; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-99bdeae1d0aso641065466b.1; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:54:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1700502892; x=1701107692; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AH/qtATkqG0IE7+soH3rXP+wxuj0BUqbBUV+OLPZxhA=; b=eBz6uP7/Y1IBs7un2OAKWTM2HOR90Oxs6iL2bA7EzEtByCjiFzdFK4nM4RpPMLfMVI esvQ3NdWQeOGddsvDET7IbV6+k4JwrOIV5+rPmQGquffv8Ll/KRcPhjZaKE4OB3/NUB5 WzGxxIaYw0FnVzDGcG8Fj/1aomrnfwO1ZWCXy+0/sY9jBFKRb2z/htXkKcPP0HQLkCCy m2K336r7KvSdmCDqmt4bNswSaO1PC4gyOO7MHFJ/hidaD20c76z8cPrQhB0tkZOfFARi A1Pv7+L8tMYi1spmRY0YtQ4d0LLd7wS5Cny4bn62T1iutjuhIv1iWygRfWCwT3BNPaQ0 NIFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700502892; x=1701107692; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=AH/qtATkqG0IE7+soH3rXP+wxuj0BUqbBUV+OLPZxhA=; b=eJ/5Z+YbqT87XBjkyNA+uO/7Ms7mYbOIaas6NDgdn8ZySGKuZglzNPpGsYhL4xY6JE zpD3PXQ8joSpLlFX5AxMsImha4kUV2I2AosigFTKCdOUFW1b8bDLu5BNa+kQbObSBknw zUoxEXx629WnBn2jsR+QeLSgK4BBIbb2ZnDGmwSnVs9UvmzIELhlEoo/tjJ6kL+haQWg 8WbYNF+RG+W+GSnX2ebTh2PtLZpV6CLBUAcxpz1QzFoqNO+3j22FVZySW2VyZvk5WGSO uEQiYvMje9Jy+fyE3GePehMQDVPZQV4SX6EjTyzbDKqEmOKsq9KiUuntEsBLoO9TDRmg USfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz6IBEmXAP8sIfQ8iKOKPkXgh40zwQ+O5ex7iR/S9gjHYMXXM4a PZPH9ergHkRVYVAVE61ybL8ysGWtTIy0BLa20DU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE0FJh9I5nhf6vbL7TzI81tUVP/dXx1th9JrDOJiX7d8Qd76CiF3lR7GyU46Eg5PQW0xUPh2bmrcPmZHTEKGS0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:d50c:b0:9e2:b85e:59e2 with SMTP id wb12-20020a170907d50c00b009e2b85e59e2mr6449451ejc.32.1700502891697; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:54:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231031000836.92599E7C06@rfcpa.amsl.com> <C93DF302-9A9F-4722-B7E2-76E02AE20035@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPwOVKhx9PCC0p=3nUE+Ur7_GgymycF8XH51PaJEdVdvxA@mail.gmail.com> <99621BD9-F598-493E-A7EF-5CFC1A58249D@amsl.com> <AS2PR02MB8839195317D0C6C62EB6FB18F0B7A@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAH6gdPyqNsbrm4UmhV+R2Y+nH8U8ecWLRMmZ8w4sF3rtdYeXxg@mail.gmail.com> <1019D6B1-EA89-4283-B3DE-656A4C17B855@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPyjn+6q3j1qkCKfqeB8qZM5JJNZ6WsWqw24-zk9vCCM8Q@mail.gmail.com> <3261C128-4494-4754-B2E2-A32A3A9E8227@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <3261C128-4494-4754-B2E2-A32A3A9E8227@amsl.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 23:24:39 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPzu+_dgNuPki6D8TVVq=ScJVXBCc7gsXwYVE8S7x_66yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
Cc: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>, bruno.decraene@orange.com, "cfilsfil@cisco.com" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "mach.chen@huawei.com" <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, "gdawra.ietf@gmail.com" <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "idr-ads@ietf.org" <idr-ads@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc9893060a992e59"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/JgbyLMJ9A8C2o49DdgsW-FZxJ8o>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 17:54:59 -0000
Hi Alanna, This text works. Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:16 PM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > Thank you for clarifying. Does the following text work? > > Perhaps: > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE > or for advertisement of SRv6 SIDs using Direct as the Protocol- > ID. Only undefined flags MUST be set to 0 when originating and > ignored on receipt. > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Nov 17, 2023, at 8:27 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > Please check inline below. > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:39 AM Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Ketan and Bruno, > > > > Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the document > accordingly. We just have one followup item. > > > > For the following: > > > There is one issue with the changed text for "Flags" field in Section > 7.1. The following sentence applies only for BGP EPE and Direct: > > > > > > Flags MUST be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > > However, the breaking of the sentence could make a reader think as if > it also applied to OSPF and ISIS. Can this be rephrased for clarity? > > > > Thank you for pointing this out. Is the intent that when flags are > eventually defined for BGP EPE and Direct, those flags MUST be set to 0 > when originated and ignored on receipt? Would the following work? > > > > KT> It is actually the other way around. Since no flags are defined for > BGP EPE and Direct, they must be set to 0 when originating and ignored on > receipt. Once some flags are defined, then this (setting to 0 and ignoring > on receipt) would apply only to the undefined flags alone. I hope that > clarifies. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > Perhaps: > > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE > > or for advertisement of SRv6 SIDs using Direct as the Protocol- > > ID, but when defined, the flags MUST be set to 0 when originated and > ignored on > > receipt. > > > > Updated XML file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > > > Updated output files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > > > Diff files showing all changes: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html > (side-by-side diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html (diff > showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view > the most recent version. > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > On Nov 17, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > > > I agree with your suggestion. I find it more clear. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 9:34 PM <bruno.decraene@orange.com> wrote: > > > Hi Madison, Ketan, > > > > > > I'm fine with this document. > > > May be one comment, up to you > > > > > > In section 6 > > > > > > OLD: This document defines the following new Link-State NLRI type for > SRv6 SID information: SRv6 SID NLRI (6). > > > NEW: This document defines the following new Link-State NLRI type for > SRv6 SID information: SRv6 SID NLRI (type 6). > > > > > > Motivation: the type number is not otherwise indicated in the rest of > the section. I'd have a preference for an explicit mention of "type 6" > rather than just "(6)". (I also find easier to be able to find type number > by searching for "type" in the document) > > > > > > Thank you > > > Regards, > > > --Bruno > > > > > > > > > Orange Restricted > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 10:59 PM > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>; gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; > cfilsfil@cisco.com; mach.chen@huawei.com; daniel.bernier@bell.ca; > DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; Alvaro Retana < > aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; idr-ads@ietf.org; > idr-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 > <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review > > > > > > Hi Ketan, > > > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and > all of our questions have been addressed. > > > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do > not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > publication process. > > > > > > Updated XML file: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > > > > > Updated output files: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > > > > > Diff files showing all changes: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html > (side-by-side diff) > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html (diff > showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view > the most recent version. > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > > > > > Thank you! > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2023, at 4:43 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > > > > > Some comments on the changes made: > > > > > > > > a) Sec 7.2 > > > > The BGP PeerNode SID and PeerSet SID SIDs > > > > > > > > The "and" is required above. > > > > > > > > b) The caption for Table 1 is not correct - perhaps it should be > "Addition to NLRI Types registry" > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check inline below for responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:43 PM Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your > attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 > announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the > AUTH48 review process. > > > > > > > > The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: > > > > > > > > http://www.r/ > > > > fc-editor.org > %2Fauth48%2Frfc9514&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orang > > > > e.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6 > > > > > f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 > > > > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7 > > > > C&sdata=Cpt6r4cCixHPZy1Jq2q7fehFfz6%2BykuZ525O0sHZDrM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > The AUTH48 FAQs are available at: > > > > > > > > https://www/. > > > > rfc-editor.org > %2Ffaq%2F%23auth48&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orang > > > > e.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6 > > > > > f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 > > > > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7 > > > > C&sdata=SHr0rKLNh9zHcfcQvNG5x79H87UNXECZsu0i%2FSRbXLM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:08 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Authors and AD*, > > > > > > > > > > *AD, please see question #1 below. > > > > > > > > > > Authors, while reviewing this document during AUTH48, please > resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML > file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors, please let us know if the > normative > > > > > reference to RFC 7752 should be updated to 7752bis (see > > > > > https://da/ > > > > > tatracker.ietf.org > %2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis%2F17%2F&data=05 > > > > > %7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387d > > > > > > ea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7 > > > > > > CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VkPSnTD2bViSpByFQArRbM62HNxzuvznG7c3wLqNccM%3D&reserved=0). > Note that 7752bis was previously approved and then put on hold by the AD, > but it is now back in EDIT state. If we update to reference 7752bis, both > this document and RFC-to-be 9513 will be published at the same time as > 7752bis. > > > > > > > > KT> It is not necessary to update this reference. However, if > RFC7752bis is getting published "soon" then it does not harm to update. > > > > > > > > > > Note that this document makes allocations in the "BGP-LS NLRI > Types" > > > > > and "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registries. The "BGP-LS NLRI > > > > > and Attribute TLVs" registry was called the "BGP-LS Node > Descriptor, > > > > > Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry in > > > > > RFC 7752 and changed by 7752bis. The name currently in the IANA > > > > > registry is "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs". See > > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv > . > > > > > > > > > > If you choose to retain the reference to RFC 7752, we will use the > > > > > registry name in that document ("BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link > > > > > Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"). If you choose > > > > > to wait to publish at the same time as 7752bis, we will use the > > > > > updated name ("BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs"). > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Please see my response to the previous comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been > > > > > updated as follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section > 3.6 > > > > > of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6 > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for > > > > > Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarity "a separate > document" > > > > > here? Is this referring to a particular RFC? > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 > > > > > described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the > MPLS > > > > > data-plane defined in a separate document. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Yes, that separate document is RFC9085. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see two instances each of the following phrases > > > > > in this document. May we update to one form for consistency? > > > > > > > > > > ...using Direct as the Protocol-ID > > > > > ...using Direct Protocol-ID > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> The first one seems better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "and using" here be updated to either > "using" or "and uses"? > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Node NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Link NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as > follows: > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps ("using"): > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Node NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Link NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > > > > Or ("and uses"): > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Node NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > LS Link NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > ... > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Your suggestion with "using" is more appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "are identical as specified" here. > Is > > > > > the meaning that the new MSD types in this document have the same > > > > > description and semantics as the MSD types defined in > > > > > [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]? Note that this sentence > appears > > > > > twice in the document. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > The description and semantics of these new MSD- > > > > > types for BGP-LS are identical as specified in > > > > > [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > The description and semantics of these new MSD- > > > > > types for BGP-LS are identical to those specified in > > > > > [RFC9352]. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "for IGPs, direct, and static > configuration" here. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > * Local Node Descriptors TLV: set of Node Descriptor TLVs for > the > > > > > local node, as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, direct, and > static > > > > > configuration or as defined in [RFC9086] for BGP protocol. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > Local Node Descriptors TLV: Set of Node Descriptor TLVs for the > > > > > local node as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, the Direct > Protocol-ID, > > > > > and the Static configuration Protocol-ID or as defined in > [RFC9086] for BGP. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this text for clarity? > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > For SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE and when advertising SRv6 > SID > > > > > using Direct Protocol-ID, none are defined currently and they > MUST > > > > > be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to > BGP EPE > > > > > or for advertisement of a SRv6 SID using the Direct Protocol-ID. > Flags MUST > > > > > be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "SET" to "set" at the end of this > > > > > sentence. Please let us know any objections. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > For SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Set SID, > > > > > multiple instances of this TLV (one for each peer in the "peer > set") > > > > > are associated with the SRv6 SID and the S-Flag is SET. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2: FYI - We have updated the name of the > > > > > registry in this section to "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" to > > > > > match the title currently in the IANA registry (renamed per > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis). Depending on the response to our > > > > > question #1, we will either use the name of the registry per RFC > > > > > 7752 ("BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, > > > > > and Attribute TLVs") or the name per draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis > ("BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs"). > > > > > > > > > > Link to registry: > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.iana.org > %2Fassignments%2Fbgp-ls-parameters%2Fbgp-ls-parameters.xht > > > > > > ml%23node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv > > > > > &data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08 > > > > > > dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486 > > > > > > 493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL > > > > > > CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gaQ%2FEI6K85rcFc > > > > > REDGBmBklZCqyiaN2x6y06GocnAks%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Please refer to my response to the first point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "set up to routers" is > correct. > > > > > Or should this be updated to "set up for routers" ("for" instead of > > > > > "to")? Also, is the capitaliation of "Link-State" correct? > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > BGP peering sessions for > > > > > address-families other than Link-State may be set up to routers > > > > > outside the SR domain. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> "set up to" is correct and the capitalization is correct as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > > > > > > > > > a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. > > > > > Should either the closed or open form be used consistently? Or > > > > > should "PeerSet" and "PeerNode" be used when followed by "SID", > and then "Peer Set" and "Peer Node" > > > > > be used elsewhere? We see "PeerSet SID" in RFCs 8402 and 9086, and > > > > > we see "PeerNode SID" in RFC 9086. > > > > > > > > > > PeerSet vs. Peer Set > > > > > > > > > > PeerNode vs. Peer Node > > > > > > > > KT> We should follow RFC8402 and RFC9086. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) This relates to the question above. The name of the TLV defined > > > > > in Section > > > > > 7.2 is "SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV". Should this be updated to > "SRv6 > > > > > BGP PeerNode SID TLV" (with "PeerNode" rather than "Peer Node")? If > > > > > so, we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly prior to > publication. > > > > > > > > > > Link to registry: > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.iana.org > %2Fassignments%2Fbgp-ls-parameters%2Fbgp-ls-parameters.xht > > > > > ml%23srv6-bgp-epe-sid&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C0 > > > > > > 2e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7 > > > > > > C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw > > > > > > MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&s > > > > > data=UZTWlxX52BAcCCG4ksC44OVyygPlgW8pvf0iv6m9wh8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. Let us update as per the terminology in RFC8402/9086. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) May we update the instance of "peer sessions" in this sentence > to > > > > > "peering sessions" to match usage elsewhere in the document? > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > ...therefore MAY be assigned to one or more > > > > > End.X SIDs associated with BGP peer sessions. > > > > > > > > KT> "peering sessions" is more appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d) FYI, we updated "SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV" to "SRv6 BGP > Peer Node SID TLV" > > > > > (no "EPE") for consistency with the name used elswhere in the > document. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > * The BGP EPE Peer Node context for a PeerNode SID, and the > Peer Set > > > > > context for a PeerSet SID [RFC8402] are advertised via the > SRv6 > > > > > BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV (Section 7.2), > > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e) FYI, we updated "OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X sub-TLV" here to "OSPFv3 > > > > > SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV" (with "SID") to match usage in Section > > > > > 9.2 of RFC-to-be 9513. > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > The information advertised via this TLV is derived from the > IS-IS SRv6 > > > > > LAN End.X SID sub-TLV (section 8.2 of > > > > > [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]) or the OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X > > > > > sub-TLV (section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]) > in the > > > > > case of IS-IS or OSPFv3 respectively. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. "SID" is required in the name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > > > > > the online Style Guide > > > > > <https://w/ > > > > > ww.rfc-editor.org > %2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data= > > > > > 05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe238 > > > > > > 7dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=exDdgSsc6tdwamgMDodmQ%2BHPbUePBXozcdbw9T75RMI%3D&reserved=0> > 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> Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Expansions for abbreviations have been added > > > > > upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > > > > > Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure > correctness. > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > KT> Ack. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/mc/rv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:05 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > > > Updated 2023/10/30 > > > > > > > > > > RFC Author(s): > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > > > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed > and > > > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > > > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > > > > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > > > > your approval. > > > > > > > > > > Planning your review > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > > > > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > > > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > > > > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > > > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > > > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > > > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree > to > > > > > changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > > > > > > > * Content > > > > > > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > > > > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention > to: > > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > > > > - contact information > > > > > - references > > > > > > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > > > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC > > > > > 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – > > > > > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > > > > > > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > > > > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements > of > > > > > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that > <sourcecode> > > > > > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > > > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > > > > > > > > > * Formatted output > > > > > > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > > > > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > > > > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > > > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Submitting changes > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as > > > > > all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The > > > > > parties > > > > > include: > > > > > > > > > > * your coauthors > > > > > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing > list > > > > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active > discussion > > > > > list: > > > > > > > > > > * More info: > > > > > > > > > > https://ma/ > > > > > ilarchive.ietf.org > %2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI > > > > > Ae6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d264 > > > > > > 4ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638 > > > > > > 352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > > > > > > V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U4IolTk > > > > > j8YKrHM%2FvbnP1WbG0hs%2FCb8SBifs1WvKPLFI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > > > > > > > https://ma/ > > > > > ilarchive.ietf.org > %2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C01%7 > > > > > Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90 > > > > > > c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknow > > > > > > n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi > > > > > > LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DiyAgpAs1s2VtrPlcezzljS5gNacJxY > > > > > I0w6AbcUXKYE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > * 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, > > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC > list and > > > > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > > > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > > > > > > > An update to the provided XML file > > > > > — OR — > > > > > An explicit list of changes in this format > > > > > > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > > > > > > > OLD: > > > > > old text > > > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > > new text > > > > > > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an > > > > > explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that > > > > > seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, > > > > > deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream > > > > > managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not > require approval from a stream manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Approving for publication > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email > > > > > stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use > > > > > ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see > your approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Files > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > The files are available here: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decrae > > > > > ne%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40b > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3hjxa25isot30zH4qOaVjffg%2BjtV1NMn2PsGUL3Bkc > > > > > 0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decra > > > > > ene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40 > > > > > > bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > > > > > > b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0% > > > > > > 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vogzFVWlNhp0vVadB%2BIzI9Fwt0HZYX7%2B%2BYXpP > > > > > HB8b2c%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decrae > > > > > ne%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40b > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PL51%2Becu%2BUfcgXbqZemAcA9NWZkI0e2LoUN1kS20 > > > > > 2S8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decrae > > > > > ne%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40b > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hf%2BceMNvDnTTMCYz%2FqLdhi39ynjAWmGF5JSocfXz > > > > > iAI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno. > > > > > decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af > > > > > > 34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWF > > > > > > pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI > > > > > > 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U8sk09rMHCF1DwT4ng7fr%2FcCkjdh5VX2CYFj > > > > > J8YRl14%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbru > > > > > no.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a2 > > > > > > 0af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7C > > > > > > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX > > > > > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fXvKQuSk1aA%2FKlZPq3Jv6luqgqLqpbay4 > > > > > eFdxPNnqJM%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) > > > > > > > > > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where > > > > > text has been deleted or moved): > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-alt-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbr > > > > > uno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a > > > > > > 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7 > > > > > > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > > > > > > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tSt9ITE4h6MMIgWjAbdYxBm2N8%2FT93nG > > > > > vcfSBchLHZ0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbr > > > > > uno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a > > > > > > 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7 > > > > > > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > > > > > > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Xe6dSLHb65hdHe2Oz8hrSzaOVuR3KRpaZy > > > > > 6UbMBdpJs%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > > > > > diff files of the XML. > > > > > > > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C01% > > > > > 7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C9 > > > > > > 0c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnkno > > > > > > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWw > > > > > > iLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vYjEfnLT1Kfyxt5Vqd3eWEdnh7xtR% > > > > > 2BSpTwRPjKyhxmQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > > > > > updates > > > > > only: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.form.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.d > > > > > ecraene%40orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af3 > > > > > > 4b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFp > > > > > > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > > > > > > Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=22Zu%2FkhmNXZjqm%2BXlbYvqIQ3Ht4%2BzN4zB > > > > > yZiFs3PMfc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org > %2Fauth48%2Frfc9514&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40 > > > > > orange.com > %7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48 > > > > > > b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > > > > > > JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3 > > > > > > 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NKnzK%2BxVtkXGPQyQlvkH%2B6qmqO29jxK%2FdwjiH2EV2%2 > > > > > BI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > RFC9514 (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14) > > > > > > > > > > Title : BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6 > > > > > Author(s) : G. Dawra, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, M. Chen, > D. Bernier, B. Decraene > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… rfc-editor
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-b… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… bruno.decraene
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… bruno.decraene
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Mach Chen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA #1289592] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… David Dong via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1289592] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-i… Ketan Talaulikar