Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-13> for your review
Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Fri, 22 July 2022 21:09 UTC
Return-Path: <lbartholomew@amsl.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 C019EC14F724; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 jmt8aNCY7yxf; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 7E59EC13C205; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50D4F4243EC0; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qWVLerrM2Q95; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8b02:4e40:60e5:672a:e81e:c8b7] (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8b02:4e40:60e5:672a:e81e:c8b7]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 015A1424B432; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220712014723.4296D4C0A9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:09:10 -0700
Cc: bier-ads@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, gengxuesong@huawei.com, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, RFC System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62FF65F9-A0C7-41A7-B686-BBD8A54A5347@amsl.com>
References: <20220712014723.4296D4C0A9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
To: tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, menth@uni-tuebingen.de, gregory@koevoo.tech
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/Q-HiHxX0F-K5RseRuh-_HkxrrY4>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-13> 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: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 21:09:16 -0000
Dear authors, We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please see the questions below. The latest files are posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-alt-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-rfcdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-xmldiff2.html Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jul 11, 2022, at 6:47 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] First-page header: We do not see multiple initials used > for the authors of this document in any published RFC or in the draft > references where the same authors are listed (e.g., > draft-eckert-bier-te-frr). Are the multiple initials intended as a > precedent for future RFCs? If not, we suggest using single initials. > > Original: > T.T.E. Eckert, Ed. > M.M. Menth > G.C. Cauchie > > Suggested (per published RFCs and current documents): > T. Eckert, Ed. > M. Menth > G. Cauchie --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We found a comment called "Removed for now by review > with Lou Berger" in the original XML file with the section title "BIER-TE and > Traffic Engineering (BIER-TE)." Please confirm that the removal of this section > is correct. (If you need to restore the section, we will do so via the > pre-edited draft version.) --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Abstract and Section 1: Because per other RFCs and > Internet searches "Interior Gateway Routing protocol" usually refers > to Cisco's IGRP, we looked up definitions of "IGP" and updated these > sentences accordingly, in an effort to avoid possible confusion for > some readers. If these updates do not convey your intended meaning, > please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > Except for the optional routed adjacencies, BIER-TE does not require > a BIER routing underlay, and can therefore operate without depending > on an "Interior Gateway Routing protocol" (IGP). > ... > Except for > the optional routed adjacencies, BIER-TE does not require a BIER > routing underlay, and can therefore operate without depending on an > "Interior Gateway Routing protocol" (IGP). > > Currently: > Except for the optional routed adjacencies, > BIER-TE does not require a BIER routing underlay and can therefore > operate without depending on a routing protocol such as the Interior > Gateway Protocol (IGP). > ... > Except for > the optional routed adjacencies, BIER-TE does not require a BIER > routing underlay and can therefore operate without depending on a > routing protocol such as the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: We defined "BFIR" as "Bit-Forwarding > Ingress Router" per RFC 8556 and per the definition of "BFER(s)". > Please let us know any objections. > > Original: > All BFRs > can act as an ingress BFR (BFIR), BFR1, BFR3, BFR4 and BFR6 can also > be BFERs. > > Currently: > All > BFRs can act as a Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR); BFR1, BFR3, > BFR4, and BFR6 can also be BFERs. --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: We found "This is showing the ability of > the shown BIER-TE Topology" difficult to follow. We updated this > sentence as noted below. Please let us know if this is incorrect. > > Original: > This is > showing the ability of the shown BIER-TE Topology to make the traffic > pass across any possible path and be replicated where desired. > > Currently: > This > demonstrates the ability of the BIER-TE Topology, as shown in > Figure 1, to make the traffic pass across any possible path and be > replicated where desired. --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: We had trouble with this sentence. > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify "non-L2, but > routed/tunneled forwarding of BIER-TE packets". > > Original: > To emphasize non-L2, but routed/tunneled forwarding of > BIER-TE packets, these adjacencies are called "forward_routed". > > Suggested: > To specify routed/tunneled forwarding of BIER-TE packets > (i.e., not Layer 2), these adjacencies are called "forward_routed()" > adjacencies. --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: We had trouble following the "and" > relationships in these two sentences. If the suggested text does not > preserve your intended meaning, please clarify. > > Original: > A > packet from BFR1 to be received by BFR4, and from BFR4 to be received > by BFR6 and from there to be received by BFR3 uses > (p2,p3,p4,p6,p7,p9). A packet from BFR1 to be received by BFR3, and > from BFR3 to be received by BFR6 there to be received by BFR4 uses > (p1,p3,p4,p5,p8,p9). > > Suggested: > A > packet from BFR1 to be received by BFR4, then from BFR4 to be > received by BFR6, and finally from BFR6 to be received by BFR3, uses > (p2,p3,p4,p6,p7,p9). A packet from BFR1 to be received by BFR3, > then from BFR3 to be received by BFR6, and finally from BFR6 to be > received by BFR4, uses (p1,p3,p4,p5,p8,p9). --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: We had trouble following this sentence. > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify "and therefore > also no unique BFR-id". > > Original: > 2. The BIER-TE layer forwarding plane does not require BFRs to > have a unique BP and therefore also no unique BFR-id. > > Suggested: > 2. The BIER-TE layer forwarding plane does not require BFRs to > have a unique BP; therefore, a unique BFR-id is not needed > either. --> > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: We had trouble following the use of "may > also be preferred to" in this sentence. If the suggested text is not > correct, please clarify. > > Original: > When a BIER-TE controller is used, then the signaling for the > Multicast Flow Overlay may also be preferred to operate through a > central point of control. > > Suggested: > When a BIER-TE controller is used, it might also be preferable that > Multicast Flow Overlay signaling be performed through a central > point of control. --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We could not follow this sentence. If the > suggested text is not correct, please clarify "but instead their > functions are summarized together in Section 4.2" (i.e., what do > "instead", "their", and "summarized together" refer to?). > > Original: > In the (non-TE) BIER architecture [RFC8279], the BIER control plane > is not explicitly separated from the BIER forwarding plane, but > instead their functions are summarized together in Section 4.2. > > Suggested: > In the (non-TE) BIER architecture [RFC8279], the BIER control plane > is not explicitly separated from the BIER forwarding plane. See > Section 4.2 for a description of relevant functions. --> > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We changed "for a BIER-TE sub-domains" to > "for BIER-TE subdomains" in this sentence. Please let us know if it > should be "for a BIER-TE subdomain" instead. > > Original: > 1. Determine the desired BIER-TE topology for a BIER-TE sub- > domains: the native and/or overlay adjacencies that are > assigned to BPs. > > Currently: > 1. Determine the desired BIER-TE topology for BIER-TE subdomains: > the native and/or overlay adjacencies that are assigned to > BPs. --> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We do not see entropy/Entropy mentioned in > any of the cited sections. Please confirm that these citations are > correct and will be clear to readers. > > Original: > 2. Determine the BitStrings and optionally Entropy. This is > discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, Section 3.5 and Section 5.3.4. --> > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: To what does "the main responsibility" > refer? If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > Different aspects > of this and the next point are discussed throughout > Section 3.2.1 and in Section 4.3, but the main responsibility > of these two points is with the Multicast Flow Overlay > (Section 3.1), which is architecturally inherited from BIER. > > Suggested: > Different aspects > of this point, as well as the next point, are discussed > throughout Section 3.2.1 and in Section 4.3, but the main > purpose of these two points relates to the Multicast Flow > Overlay (Section 3.1), which is architecturally inherited from > BIER. --> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Regarding this note from you: > > [RFC-Editor: the following text has three references to anchors > topology-control, topology-control-1 and tree-control. Unfortunately, > XMLv2 does not offer any tagging that reasonable references are generated > (i had this problem already in RFCs last year. Please make sure there > are useful-to-read cross-references in the RFC in these three places > after you convert to XMLv3.] > > With v3, it appears to us that the "topology-control" and > "tree-control" tags, whose anchors are embedded in "top-level" > "<dd>" elements, are working properly in the .html and .pdf > outputs. However, the "topology-control-1" link, whose anchor was > embedded in a nested "<li>" element, was translated in the text of > Section 3.2.1.1 by v3 (as it was in the submitted v2 copy) as > "(Section 3.2, Paragraph 3, Item 2.2.1)", which was inaccurate given > that the list is only two levels deep. > > We applied 'format="none"' to the "topology-control-1" xref as > follows: <xref target="topology-control-1" format="none">. We also > included a pointer to Section 3.2, as noted below. Please check the > updated links in the .html and .pdf outputs, and let us know any > concerns. > > Original: > The first item of BIER-TE topology control (Section 3.2, Paragraph 3, > Item 2.2.1) includes network topology discovery and BIER-TE topology > creation. > > Currently (two links, the first more specific than the second): > The first item listed for BIER-TE topology control (Section 3.2) > includes network topology discovery and BIER-TE topology creation. --> > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.1: We had trouble determining what is > listed in this sentence and how they relate to each other. If the > suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > In other networks, topology discovery may rely on protocols including > extending a "Link-State-Protocol" based IGP into the BIER-TE > controller itself, [RFC7752] (BGP-LS) or [RFC8345] (YANG topology) as > well as BIER-TE specific methods, for example via > [I-D.ietf-bier-te-yang]. > > Suggested: > In other networks, topology discovery may rely on such protocols as > those that include extending an IGP based on a link-state protocol > into the BIER-TE controller itself, e.g., BGP-LS [RFC7752] or YANG > topology [RFC8345], as well as methods specific to BIER-TE - for > example, via [BIER-TE-YANG]. --> > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.1: Should "BitPositions/adjacencies" be > "BPs/adjacencies", and should "SI:BitPositions" be "SIs:BPs"? > The only other instances of the form "BitPosition" that we see are > "GetFirstBitPosition" and "GetNextBitPosition" in the figures in > Section 4.4. > > Original: > When the BIER-TE topology is determined, the BIER-TE Controller then > pushes the BitPositions/adjacencies to the BIFT of the BFRs. On each > BFR only those SI:BitPositions are populated that are adjacencies to > other BFRs in the BIER-TE topology. --> > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.1: For ease of the reader, we defined > "SDN" as "Software-Defined Network" per RFC 8279. If this is > incorrect, please provide the correct definition. > > Original: > Vendor-specific CLI on the BFRs is also an option (as in many > other SDN solutions lacking definition of standardized data models). > > Currently: > A vendor-specific CLI on the BFRs is also an option (as in > many other Software-Defined Network (SDN) solutions lacking > definitions of standardized data models). --> > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.2: Does "such as shortest path trees, ..." > refer to the policy reasons or the different overlay flows? If the > suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > Likewise, the BitString from > the same BFIR to the same set of BFER can be different for different > overlay flows for policy reasons such as shortest path trees, Steiner > trees (minimum cost trees), diverse path trees for redundancy and so > on. > > Suggested (assuming that the different overlay flows apply here): > Likewise, for policy reasons, the BitString from > the same BFIR to the same set of BFERs can be different for such > different overlay flows as shortest path trees, Steiner trees > (minimum-cost trees), diverse path trees for redundancy, and so on. --> > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.2: We do not see the word "tree" used in > [I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response]. Please confirm that this > citation is correct and will be clear to readers. > > Original: > See also [I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response] for an application > leveraging BIER-TE engineered trees. --> > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2.1.4: For ease of the reader, we expanded > "FRR" as "Fast Reroute". Please let us know any objections. > > Original: > When link or nodes fail or recover in the topology, BIER-TE could > quickly respond with FRR procedures such as [I-D.eckert-bier-te-frr], > the details of which are out of scope for this document. > > Currently: > When links or nodes fail or recover in the topology, BIER-TE could > quickly respond with Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures such as those > described in [BIER-TE-PROTECTION], the details of which are out of > scope for this document. --> > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3: Because the "or" in "and/or" would mean > that there would not be a combination, we updated this sentence as > follows. If this update does not properly convey your intended > meaning, please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > This is driven by a combination of state established by > the BIER-TE control plane and/or the multicast flow overlay as > explained in Section 3.1. > > Currently: > This is driven by state established by the BIER-TE > control plane, the multicast flow overlay as explained in > Section 3.1, or a combination of both. --> > > > 23) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3: For ease of the reader, we defined "DSCP" > as "Differentiated Services Code Point". If this is incorrect, > please provide the correct definition. > > Original: > Processing of other BIER header fields such as DSCP > is outside the scope of this document. > > Currently: > Processing of other BIER header fields, such as the > Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) field, is outside the > scope of this document. --> > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.4: Does "This" mean "This process", "This > calculation", or something else? Please clarify. > > Original (the previous sentence is included for context): > BIER relies on the routing underlay to calculate paths towards BFERs > and derive next-hop BFR adjacencies for those paths. This commonly > relies on BIER specific extensions to the routing protocols of the > routing underlay but may also be established by a controller. --> > > > 25) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.4: For ease of the reader, we expanded "BFD" > as "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection". If this is incorrect, > please provide the correct definition. > > Original: > If the BFR intends to support FRR for BIER-TE, then the BIER-TE > forwarding plane needs to receive fast adjacency up/down > notifications: Link up/down or neighbor up/down, e.g. from BFD. > > Currently: > If the BFR intends to support FRR for BIER-TE, then the BIER-TE > forwarding plane needs to receive fast adjacency up/down > notifications: link up/down or neighbor up/down, e.g., from > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD). --> > > > 26) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.5: Please confirm that "TE" stands for > "Traffic Engineering" and not "Tree Engineering" here. We would > like to spell it out as appropriate, because the standalone term > "TE" is not used anywhere else in this document. > > Original (the previous sentence is included for context): > Traffic Engineering ([I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis]) provides performance > optimization of operational IP networks while utilizing network > resources economically and reliably. The key elements needed to > effect TE are policy, path steering and resource management. > > Suggested: > The key elements needed to effect Traffic Engineering are > policy, path steering, and resource management. --> > > > 27) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.5: Because Section 4.2.1 discusses > forward_connected() adjacencies and Section 4.2.2 discusses > forward_routed() adjacencies, we changed "4.2.1" to "4.2.2" here. > Please let us know any concerns (e.g., should the instances of > "forward_routed()" be "forward_connected()" here?). > > Original: > The resource usage of the BIER-TE traffic > admitted by the BIER-TE controller can be solely tracked on the BIER- > TE Controller based on local accounting as long as no > forward_routed() adjacencies are used (see Section 4.2.1 for the > definition of forward_routed() adjacencies). > > Currently: > The resource usage of the BIER-TE traffic > admitted by the BIER-TE controller can be solely tracked on the BIER- > TE Controller based on local accounting as long as no > forward_routed() adjacencies are used (see Section 4.2.2 for the > definition of forward_routed() adjacencies). --> > > > 28) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: This sentence reads oddly, as a BIFT is > already defined as being a table. May we update as suggested? > If not, please clarify "it is a table as shown". > > Original (the previous two sentences are included for context; > "shown shown" has been corrected): > The BIER-TE BIFT is the equivalent to the BIER BIFT for (non-TE) > BIER. It exists on every BFR running BIER-TE. For every BIER sub- > domain (SD) in use for BIER-TE, it is a table as shown shown in > Figure 4. > > Suggested: > For every BIER subdomain (SD) in use > for BIER-TE, the BIFT would be constructed per the example shown in > Figure 4. --> > > > 29) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: Does "those adjacencies forwarding > entries" mean "those adjacencies that forward entries", "those > adjacencies' forwarding entries", or something else? > > Original: > In BIER-TE, each BIFT-index and therefore SI:BP indicates one or more > adjacencies between BFRs in the topology and is only populated with > those adjacencies forwarding entries on the BFR that is the upstream > for these adjacencies. --> > > > 30) <!-- [rfced] We incorporated the "BIER-TE Bit Index Forwarding Table > (BIFT)" text that appeared at the bottom of Figure 4 into the > figure's title, as it appears to say the same thing as the original > figure title (but provides the expansion for "BIFT"). Please let us > know any objections. > > Original: > ... > BIER-TE Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) > > Figure 4: BIER-TE BIFT with different adjacencies > > Currently: > ... > Figure 4: BIER-TE Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) with > Different Adjacencies --> > > > 31) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: Please clarify the meaning of "the BIER-TE > Forwarding Procedures". Are they found elsewhere in this document > or perhaps in another RFC? Please specify the section number or RFC, > as applicable. > > Original: > The BIFT is then used to forward packets, according to the rules > specified in the BIER-TE Forwarding Procedures. --> > > > 32) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: We do not see "controller" mentioned in > Section 5.1.6. Please confirm that this citation is correct and will > be clear to readers. > > Original: > See Section 5.1.6 for an example of how a > BIER-TE controller could assign BPs to (logical) adjacencies shared > across multiple BFRs, Section 5.1.3 for an example of assigning the > same BP to different adjacencies, and Section 5.1.9 for general > guidelines regarding re-use of BPs across different adjacencies. --> > > > 33) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.2: We had trouble with the usage of > "either" and determining what "or by" refers to in this sentence. > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > This identification can either rely on the BIER/BIER-TE co- > existence mechanisms described in Section 4.3, or by explicit support > for a BIER-TE payload type in the tunneling encapsulation. > > Suggested (assuming that this identification relies on either > the mechanisms or explicit support): > This identification can rely on either the BIER/BIER-TE co- > existence mechanisms described in Section 4.3 or explicit support > for a BIER-TE payload type in the tunneling encapsulation. --> > > > 34) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3: We found the wording of this sentence > confusing, as it prompted us to search RFC 8279 for "maximum" and > "MTU" (only to find that it doesn't mention either term). May we > rephrase as suggested? If not, please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > Like [RFC8279], handling of "Maximum Transmission Unit" (MTU) > limitations is outside the scope of this document and instead part of > the BIER-TE packet encapsulation and/or flow overlay. See for > example [RFC8296], Section 3. > > Suggested: > The handling of Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) limitations is > outside the scope of this document and is not discussed in > [RFC8279]. Instead, this process is part of the BIER-TE packet > encapsulation and/or flow overlay; for example, see [RFC8296], > Section 3. --> > > > 35) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3: This paragraph is difficult to follow. > Does "which" mean that the fixed mapping never explicitly partitions > the BIFT-id space, or can the fixed mapping sometimes explicitly > partition the BIFT-id space, in which case "which" should be "that"? > Does "same or different SD" mean "same SD or a different SD", > "same SD or different SDs", or something else? > > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > When a fixed mapping from BSL, SD and SI to BIFT-id is used which > does not explicitly partition the BIFT-id space between BIER and > BIER-TE, such as proposed for non-MPLS forwarding with [RFC8296] > encapsulation in [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] revision 04, > section 5, then it is necessary to allocate disjoint SDs to BIER and > BIER-TE BIFTs so that both can be addressed by the BIFT-ids. The > encoding proposed in section 6. of the same document does not > statically encode BSL or SD into the BIFT-id, but allows for a > mapping, and hence could provide for the same freedom as when MPLS is > being used (same or different SD for BIER/BIER-TE). > > Suggested (assuming that the fixed mapping never explicitly > partitions the BIFT-id space; also assuming "different SDs"): > When a fixed mapping from BSL, SD, and SI to a BIFT-id is used, > which does not explicitly partition the BIFT-id space between BIER > and BIER-TE - for example, as proposed for non-MPLS forwarding with > BIER encapsulation [RFC8296] in [NON-MPLS-BIER-ENCODING], Section 5 > - it is necessary to allocate disjoint SDs to BIER and BIER-TE BIFTs > so that both can be addressed by the BIFT-ids. The encoding > proposed in Section 6 of [NON-MPLS-BIER-ENCODING] does not > statically encode the BSL or SD into the BIFT-id, but the encoding > permits a mapping and hence could provide the same freedom as when > MPLS is being used (the same SD, or different SDs for BIER/BIER-TE). --> > > > 36) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: Because Figures 4 and 5 are referred to as > "pseudocode", we changed "<artwork>" in the XML file to <sourcecode> > with type="pseudocode". Please let us know any concerns. For > information regarding <sourcecode> types, please see > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>. --> > > > 37) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: We had trouble following this sentence. > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify the meaning of > "to create duplicates". > > Original: > This protects against BIER replication on any > possible further BFR to create duplicates ([2]). > > Suggested: > This prevents BIER's replication logic from creating duplicates on > any possible further BFRs ([2]). --> > > > 38) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: This sentence does not parse. If the > suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > This Forwarding Pseudocode can support the required BIER-TE > forwarding functions (see Section 4.5), forward_connected(), > forward_routed() and local_decap(), but not the recommended functions > DNC flag and multiple adjacencies per bit nor the optional function, > ECMP() adjacencies. > > Suggested: > This Forwarding Pseudocode can support the required BIER-TE > forwarding functions (see Section 4.5) - forward_connected(), > forward_routed(), and local_decap() - but cannot support the > recommended functions (DNC flag and multiple adjacencies per bit) > or the optional function (i.e., ECMP() adjacencies). --> > > > 39) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4: xml2rfc v3 now permits subscripting and > superscripting. Would you like to use superscripting in "BSL^2*SI"? > If yes, should "2*SI" be superscripted, or only the "2"? > > (For an example of superscripting in a recent RFC, see the > "Implementation Note" paragraph in Appendix A of RFC 9260 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9260.html). > > Original: > * This pseudocode eliminates per-bit F-BM, therefore reducing the > size of BIFT state by BSL^2*SI and eliminating the need for per- > packet-copy BitString masking operations except for adjacencies > with the DNC flag set: --> > > > 40) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5: We changed "forwarded_routed" to > "forward_routed()", as this was the only instance of "forwarded" > in this document that was followed by an underscore. Please let us > know if this is incorrect (i.e., should all instances of "forward_" > be "forwarded_"?). > > Original: > This is an > optional requirement, because for ECMP deployments using BIER-TE one > can also leverage ECMP of the routing underlay via forwarded_routed > adjacencies and/or might prefer to have more explicit control of the > path chosen via explicit BP/adjacencies for each ECMP path > alternative. > > Currently: > This is an > optional requirement, because for ECMP deployments using BIER-TE one > can also leverage the routing underlay ECMP via forward_routed() > adjacencies and/or might prefer to have more explicit control of the > path chosen via explicit BPs/adjacencies for each ECMP path > alternative. --> > > > 41) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.1: Does "P2P" stand for "peer-to-peer" or > "point-to-point" in this document? We would like to define it for > ease of the reader. > > Original: > On a P2P link that connects two BFRs, the same bit position can be > used on both BFRs for the adjacency to the neighboring BFR. --> > > > 42) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.4: Should the vertical line for p3 in > Figure 8 be aligned under a "+" sign, as are the other vertical > lines)? > > Original (best viewed with a fixed-point font such as Courier; > dashed lines are broken so that they will not be confused with a > comment): > BFR1 > |p1 > LAN1-+-+- -+- - -+ > p3| p4| p2| > BFR3 BFR4 BFR7 > > Figure 8: LAN Example > > Perhaps: > BFR1 > |p1 > LAN1-+-+- -+- - -+ > p3| p4| p2| > BFR3 BFR4 BFR7 > > Figure 8: LAN Example > > Or possibly: > BFR1 > |p1 > LAN1-+-+- - -+- - -+ > p3| p4| p2| > BFR3 BFR4 BFR7 > > Figure 8: LAN Example --> > > > 43) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.4: Please clarify the meaning of > "Adjacencies of such BFRs into their LAN". Does it mean "Adding > adjacencies of such BFRs to these LANs" or something else? > > Original: > Adjacencies of such BFRs into their LAN still need a > separate bit position. --> > > > 44) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "(SA)" as SA is not used elsewhere in the > text. Please let us know any objections. > > Original: > This type of optimized BP could be used for example when all traffic > is "broadcast" traffic (very dense receiver set) such as live-TV or > many-to-many telemetry including situation-awareness (SA). > --> > > > 45) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.6: > > a) As all other mentions of "ring" related to Figure 9 are singular, > we changed "the rings shown in Figure 9" to "the ring shown in > Figure 9". Note: If this update is incorrect, please review all > instances of the singular "ring" in this section, and let us know if > they should be changed to "rings" (e.g., "entering the ring", "any > BFR in the ring"). > > b) To what text does the colon after "to BFR1" refer - the next > paragraph or the next two paragraphs (in which case we should indent > the text in question)? If neither, may we change the colon to a > period? > > Original: > For the rings shown in Figure 9, a single bit position will suffice > to forward traffic entering the ring at BFRa or BFRb all the way up > to BFR1: > > Currently: > For the ring shown in Figure 9, a single bit position will suffice to > forward traffic entering the ring at BFRa or BFRb all the way up to > BFR1: --> > > > 46) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.7: Regarding this question from you: > [RFC-Editor: A reviewer (Lars Eggert) noted that the infinite "to use" > in the following sentence is not correct. The same was also noted for > several other similar instances. The following URL seems to indicate > though that this is a per-case decision, which seems undefined: https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/choosing-between-infinitive-and-gerund-to-do-or-doing. What exactly should be done about this ?]. > > Thank you for asking this question. We reviewed all such instances > in this document and updated the text where needed. Please review, > and let us know any concerns regarding our updates. --> > > > 47) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.9: To which paragraph or paragraphs does > the colon in "useful path choices:" refer? Should the paragraph or > paragraphs be indented? If so, which paragraph(s)? Alternatively, > may we change the colon to a period? > > Original: > Packets with both BP 0:5 and BP > 0:6 would now be able to reach both BFR2 and BFR3 and the still > existing re-use of BP 0:7 between BFR2 and BFR3 is a case of (B) > where reuse of BP is perfect because it does not limit the set of > useful path choices: --> > > > 48) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.9: Does "5 areas" refer to areas 2...6, or > should it be "six areas"? Also, please confirm that "through other > BPs for the Core to" should not be "through other BPs from the core > to". > > Original: > These two BPs could be reused across the 5 > areas. Packets would be replicated through other BPs for the Core to > the desired subset of areas, and once a packet copy reaches the ring > of the area, the two ring BPs come into play. --> > > > 49) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.10: We had trouble following this sentence. > We updated it as follows. If this is incorrect, please clarify > "subnet adjacent neighbor". > > Original: > Without any optimization, a BIER-TE Controller would attempt to map > the network subnet topology 1:1 into the BIER-TE topology and every > subnet adjacent neighbor requires a forward_connected() BP and every > BFER requires a local_decap() BP. > > Currently: > Without any optimization, a BIER-TE Controller would attempt to map > the network subnet topology 1:1 into the BIER-TE topology, every > adjacent neighbor in the subnet would require a forward_connected() > BP, and every BFER would require a local_decap() BP. --> > > > 50) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.1: We had trouble following "packets that > need to be sent ... require different BIER packets" in this sentence. > Is it correct to say that packets require packets? If not, please > (1) let us know if the suggested text preserves your intended > meaning or (2) provide clarifying text. > > Original: > For (non-TE) BIER and BIER-TE forwarding, the most important result > of using multiple SI and/or sub-domains is the same: Packets that > need to be sent to BFERs in different SIs or sub-domains require > different BIER packets: each one with a BitString for a different > (SI,sub-domain) combination. > > Suggested (guessing that the packets must be sent as distinct BIER > packets): > For (non-TE) BIER and BIER-TE forwarding, the most important result > of using multiple SIs and/or subdomains is the same: packets that > need to be sent to BFERs in different SIs or subdomains must be sent > as distinct BIER packets, each one with a BitString for a different > (SI,subdomain) combination. --> > > > 51) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.1: "BIER architecture shared by BIER-TE" > did not seem to be quite the correct wording here. We updated this > sentence as follows. If this update is incorrect, please provide > clarifying text. > > Original: > For BIER and BIER-TE forwarding themselves there is also no > difference whether different SIs and/or sub-domains are chosen, but > SI and sub-domain have different purposes in the BIER architecture > shared by BIER-TE. > > Currently: > For BIER and BIER-TE forwarding, it doesn't matter whether or not > different SIs and/or subdomains are chosen, but SIs and subdomains > have different purposes in the BIER architecture in cases where it > also applies to BIER-TE. --> > > > 52) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.2: We found this paragraph difficult to > follow. We updated it as noted below. Please review carefully. If > anything is incorrect, please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > "Desired" topology because it depends on the physical topology, and > on the desire of the operator to allow for explicit path steering > across every single hop (which requires more bits), or reducing the > number of required bits by exploiting optimizations such as unicast > (forward_routed()), ECMP() or flood (DNC) over "uninteresting" sub- > parts of the topology - e.g. parts where different trees do not need > to take different paths due to path steering reasons. > > Currently: > "Desired" topology means that it depends on the physical topology and > the operator's desire to > > * permit explicit path steering across every single hop (which > requires more bits), or > > * reduce the number of required bits by exploiting optimizations > such as unicast (forward_routed()), ECMP(), or flood (DNC) over > "uninteresting" sub-parts of the topology, e.g., parts where, for > path steering reasons, different trees do not need to take > different paths. --> > > > 53) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.4: It appears to us that "it needs" refers > to the flow overlay applications, in which case it should be "they > need". May we update as suggested? If not, please clarify what "it" > refers to. > > Original (the previous sentence is included for context. "BIFR" > has been corrected): > The flow overlay on the BIFR can > then independently of the controller calculate the SI:BitString for > all desired BFERs by OR'ing their BitStrings. This allows for flow > overlay applications to operate independently of the controller > whenever it needs to determine which subset of BFERs need to receive > a particular packet. > > Suggested: > This allows flow > overlay applications to operate independently of the controller > whenever they need to determine which subset of BFERs needs to receive > a particular packet. --> > > > 54) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.5: Does "their" in this sentence refer to > subdomains, BIER and BIER-TE, or something else? If the suggested > text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original (the previous sentence is included for context): > A. BIER and BIER-TE have different BFR-id in the same sub-domain. > This allows higher replication efficiency for BIER because their BFR- > id can be assigned sequentially, while the BitStrings for BIER-TE > will have also the additional bits for the topology. > > Suggested (assuming that "their" means "BIER and BIER-TE BFR-ids"): > A. BIER and BIER-TE have different BFR-ids in the same subdomain. > This allows higher replication efficiency for BIER because the > BIER and BIER-TE BFR-ids can be assigned sequentially, while the > BitStrings for BIER-TE will also have the additional bits for > the topology. --> > > > 55) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.6.1: These sentences did not parse well. > We updated as follows. If these updates do not convey your intended > meaning, please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > Allocating SIs to areas with initially sufficiently many spare bits > for growths can help to alleviate this issue. Or renumber BFERs > after network expansion. > > Currently: > Allocating SIs to areas that initially have sufficiently many spare > bits for growth can help alleviate this issue. Alternatively, BFERs > can be renumbered after network expansion. --> > > > 56) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.6.1: We found the two "even"s in this > sentence confusing. We updated as follows. If this is incorrect, > please provide clarifying text. > > Original: > This example shows that intelligent BFR-id allocation within at least > sub-domain 0 can even be helpful or even necessary in BIER. > > Currently: > This example shows that intelligent BFR-id allocation within at least > subdomain 0 can be helpful or even necessary in BIER. --> > > > 57) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3.6.2: > > a) To what does the colon in "area edge BFR:" refer - the next > paragraph, or the next two paragraphs? We would like to indent the > text of the next paragraph or the next two paragraphs, as > appropriate. Alternatively, could the colon be changed to a period? > > b) We had trouble following the text in the second paragraph. If the > suggested text is not correct, please clarify "the bits indicate bits > for topology and BFER" and "For BFER in the same area as in the BFIR". > > Original: > These bits are then set up with the > right forward_routed() adjacencies on the BFIR and area edge BFR: > > On all BFIRs in an area j|j=1...6, bia in each BIFT:SI is populated > with the same forward_routed(BFRja), and bib with > forward_routed(BFRjb). On all area edge BFR, bea in > BIFT:SI=k|k=1...6 is populated with forward_routed(BFRka) and beb in > BIFT:SI=k with forward_routed(BFRkb). > > For BIER-TE forwarding of a packet to a subset of BFERs across all > areas, a BFIR would create at most 6 copies, with SI=1...SI=6, In > each packet, the bits indicate bits for topology and BFER in that > topology plus the four bits to indicate whether to pass this packet > via the ingress area a or b border BFR and the egress area a or b > border BFR, therefore allowing path steering for those two "unicast" > legs: 1) BFIR to ingress area edge and 2) core to egress area edge. > Replication only happens inside the egress areas. For BFER in the > same area as in the BFIR, these four bits are not used. > > Suggested (second paragraph): > For BIER-TE forwarding of a packet to a subset of BFERs across all > areas, a BFIR would create at most six copies, with SI=1...SI=6. In > each packet, these bits in turn indicate bits for the topology and > the BFERs in that topology, plus the four bits to indicate whether > to pass this packet via the ingress area a or b border BFR and the > egress area a or b border BFR, therefore allowing path steering for > those two "unicast" legs: 1) BFIR to ingress area edge and 2) core > to egress area edge. Replication only happens inside the egress > areas. For BFERs that are in the same area as the BFIR, these four > bits are not used. --> > > > 58) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: We had trouble following the meaning of > "results of the routing protocol". Is "results of" necessary? > If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. > > Original: > Attacking the protocols for the BIER routing > underlay or (non-TE) BIER layer control plane, or impairment of any > BFR in a domain may lead to successful attacks against the results of > the routing protocol, enabling DoS attacks against paths or the > addressing (BFR-id, BFR-prefixes) used by BIER. > > Suggested: > Attacking the protocols for the BIER routing > underlay or (non-TE) BIER layer control plane, or the impairment of > any BFRs in a domain, may lead to successful attacks that target the > routing protocol, enabling DoS attacks against paths or the > addressing (BFR-ids, BFR-prefixes) used by BIER. --> > > > 59) <!-- [rfced] Section 6: This sentence did not parse. We updated it > as follows. If this is incorrect, please clarify "same degree of > looping packets as possible". > > Original: > In > result, BIER-TE has the same degree of looping packets as possible > with unintentional or malicious loops in the routing underlay with > BIER or even with unicast traffic. > > Currently: > As a result, looping packets can occur in BIER-TE to the same degree > as is possible with unintentional or malicious loops in the routing > underlay with BIER, or even with unicast traffic. --> > > > 60) <!-- [rfced] We note that https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2692227.2692232 resolves, but <https://dx.doi.org/> was unable to find 10.5555/2692227.2692232 in the system. We found this DOI: 10.3233/JHS-1994-3405, but it's unclear to use if you chose to avoid <https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-high-speed-networks/jhs3-4-05> because it requires payment. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. > > Original: > [RCSD94] Zhang, H. and D. Domenico, "Rate-Controlled Service > Disciplines", Journal of High-Speed Networks, 1994, May > 1994, <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2692227.2692232>. > --> > > > 61) <!-- [rfced] Appendix A: We made quite a few updates to this section > in an effort to clarify the text. Please review all updates > carefully. If anything is incorrect, please provide clarifying text. > > For example, please clarify the following if our updates to the text > in question are incorrect: > > * what "either" refers to in the second paragraph > * what "This can be called" refers to; we changed "This" to "These > segments" > * what "SID" stands for; we defined it as "Segment Identifier" per > RFC 8402 > * what "would directly replicate to it" means; we changed it to "would > directly replicate traffic on it" --> > > > 62) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide at > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>, > and let us know if any changes are needed. Aside from "native", our script did not identify problematic terms. > --> > > > 63) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the > following: > > a) The following terms were used inconsistently in this document. > We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any objections. > > BIFT index (1 instance) / BIFT-index (7 instances) > > ECMP adjacencies (2 instances) / ECMP() adjacencies (10 instances) > > FBM (1 instance) / F-BM > > forward_routed adjacency (or adjacencies) (3 instances) / > forward_routed() adjacency (or adjacencies) (19 instances) > > Leaf BFER (1 instance in text) / leaf BFER (2 instances in text) > > Non-Leaf BFER (1 instance in text) / > non-Leaf BFER (3 instances in text) / > non-leaf BFER (5 instances in text) > > p2p / P2P (in running text) > > traffic engineering / Traffic Engineering (in running text) > (We see that "Tree Engineering" is consistently > initial-capitalized in this document, so we went with the > initial-capitalized form for "Traffic Engineering" as well.) > > b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this > document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > > accelerated hardware forwarding (text) / > Accelerated/Hardware forwarding comparison (section title) > (In other words, does the slash ("/") serve a specific purpose?) > > BIER-TE controller / BIER-TE Controller > (For example, we see "... by the BIER-TE controller can be solely > tracked on the BIER-TE Controller" in Section 3.5.) > > (We also see both "controller" and "Controller" where used more > generally, e.g., "a controller", "a Controller". For > consistency, please advise regarding which form should be used.) > > BIER-TE Topology / BIER-TE topology (in running text) > > entropy / Entropy (for example, "entropy field", "Entropy fields", > "and optionally Entropy", "the packet entropy") > > Flow overlay / flow overlay (in running text) > (We see the lowercase form "routing underlay" used consistently > in running text.) > > Forwarding Pseudocode / forwarding pseudocode (in running text) > > IP/IPv6 / IPv4/IPv6 > > leaf-BFER (noun) / leaf BFER (noun) > (We do not see any instances of "non-leaf-BFER" where used as > a noun. We suggest removing the hyphen after "leaf", as it > appears that the term appears to indicate whether or not a > BFER is a "leaf".) > > Multicast Flow Overlay (3 instances in running text) / > multicast flow overlay (6 instances in running text) > > SIs/BitStrings / SI:BitString / SI:BitStrings > Should the slash ("/") be a colon (":"), and should > "SI:BitStrings" be "SIs:BitStrings"? > > (We also see one instance of "SI:BitPositions".) --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor > > > > On Jul 11, 2022, at 6:40 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2022/07/11 > > 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://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, > 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-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/rfc9262.original.v2v3.xml > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates > only: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262.form.xml > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9262 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9262 (draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-13) > > Title : Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE) > Author(s) : T.T.E. Eckert, Ed., M.M. Menth, G.C. Cauchie > WG Chair(s) : Tony Przygienda, Greg Shepherd > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-bier-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Grégory CAUCHIE
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Michael Menth
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Michael Menth
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Michael Menth
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Gregory CAUCHIE
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew