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

[Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

For me, the current document is very good, thank you!
I approve the current form.

Thanks,
Shunwan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 5:41 AM
> To: Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>;
> Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Zhuangshunwan
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for
> your review
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48
> status page.
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> 
> We will await further word from the authors regarding updates and/or
> approvals prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Jun 20, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Andrew Alston - IETF
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I’m ok with the changes to 3.1 and and the addition in section 2.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:22 PM
> > To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>;
> > Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>; Andrew Alston - IETF
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252
> > <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review
> >
> > Ketan, Jorge, and *Andrew (AD),
> >
> > *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from “SHOULD” to
> > “MUST” in Section 3.1, as well as the addition of “Layer 2 services” in
> Section 2.
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
> >
> > Ketan and Jorge - Thank you for your replies. We have updated accordingly.
> >
> > FYI, we removed the following reference from the References section as
> > its only occurrence was replaced with [RFC9012] in Section 1 per Ketan's
> request.
> >
> > [BGP-SR-POLICY]
> > Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes, P., Jain, D.,
> > and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP", Work in
> > Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
> > ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-17, 14 April 2022,
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
> > segment-routing-te-policy-17>.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html (comprehensive
> > diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html
> > (AUTH48 changes)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last version
> > to this one)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html (last
> > version to this one side by side)
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alanna,
> > >
> > > I discussed offline with Ketan and we decided to modify a little bit (for
> clarity) the second change that he suggested in his last email:
> > >
> > >
> > > For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two occurrences),
> > > 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
> > >
> > > OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the value is set in
> the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL).
> > > NEW: it is set to Implicit NULL in the higher-order 20 bits (i.e., as
> 0x000030). In either case, the value is set in the 24 bits.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have questions.
> > > Thank you.
> > > Jorge
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> > > Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 at 1:32 PM
> > > To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> > > [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>,
> > > [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, Rabadan,
> Jorge
> > > (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>,
> > > [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> > > [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> > > Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> > > <[e-mail]>,[e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252
> > > <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review
> > >
> > > Hi Alanna,
> > >
> > > There are 2 further changes based on the discussion below about the
> original "high order 20 bits" error.
> > >
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/VN3_pFg5CbB337SQYFKDubR_E
> > > QM/
> > >
> > > In sec 3.2.1
> > >
> > > OLD: SRv6 SID value and put into high order bits of the MPLS Label field.
> > > NEW: SRv6 SID value and encoded in the MPLS Label field.
> > >
> > > For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two occurrences),
> > > 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
> > >
> > > OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the value is set in
> the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of Implicit NULL).
> > > NEW: it is set to the Implicit NULL value (i.e., as 0x000030). In either case,
> the value is set in the 24 bits.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ketan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:13 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Ketan,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply. We updated the files as requested and have
> > > a couple of follow-up questions.
> > >
> > > 1) This suggested text needs further updating as the either/or
> > > relationship is not parallel. Please review and let us know if
> > > option A or B reflects the intended meaning.
> > >
> > > Suggested text:
> > > To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding
> > > of the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services TLVs,
> > > or
> > > 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> > > Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> > > (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> > > specific to that service encoding.
> > >
> > > Perhaps (Moved “either” after allows):
> > > A) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows either 1) the
> > > encoding of the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services
> > > TLVs or
> > > 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> > > Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> > > (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> > > specific to that service encoding.
> > >
> > > Or (Removed “either”):
> > > B) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the
> > > encoding of the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services
> > > TLVs or
> > > 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> > > Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> > > (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> > > specific to that service encoding.
> > >
> > > 2) Regarding the terminology, we have not made any changes to the
> > > terms where you replied “Depends on the usage”. If any further
> > > updates are required for these, please let us know.
> > >
> > > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> > >
> > > The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html (comprehensive
> > > diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html
> > > (AUTH48 changes)
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> > > version to this one)
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> > > version to this one side by side)
> > >
> > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> > > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a
> > > document is published as an RFC.
> > >
> > > We will await approvals from each author and the AD prior to moving
> > > this document forward in the publication process.
> > >
> > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > RFC Editor/ap
> > >
> > > > On Jun 16, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alanna,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for resending and please check inline below for responses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:45 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > Hi Ketan,
> > > >
> > > > The remaining unanswered queries are listed below.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, they can be seen in the XML file as comments marked
> > > > as: <!-- [rfced] ... —>
> > > >
> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) <!--[rfced] We notice that the Abstract and Introduction use
> > > > "SRv6-based BGP services" but the title and short title across the
> > > > header in the pdf use "SRv6 BGP-based Overlay Services". Should
> > > > the titles be updated per Option A or B below, or should the text
> > > > in the Abstract and Introduction be updated to reflect "SRv6
> > > > BGP-based Overlay Services" for consistency?
> > > >
> > > > Also note that the abbreviations in the title have been expanded
> > > > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7332 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > A)
> > > > Title: BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6
> > > > (SRv6) Short title: SRv6-Based BGP Overlay Services
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > B)
> > > > Title: Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Overlay Services Based on
> > > > BGP Short Title: SRv6 BGP-Based Overlay Services
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> (A) is more appropriate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] In this sentence, does "them" refer to "mechanisms"
> > > > or "a variable part"? Please review and let us know how to update.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > Section 4 describes mechanisms for signaling of the SRv6 Service
> > > > SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and
> > > > carrying them in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more
> > > > efficient packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > A) (if referring to "mechanisms"):
> > > > Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6
> > > > Service SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value
> > > > and carrying the mechanism in existing MPLS label fields to
> > > > achieve more efficient packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP
> update messages.
> > > > Or
> > > >
> > > > B) (if referring to "a variable part"):
> > > > Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6
> > > > Service SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value
> > > > and carrying the variable part in existing MPLS label fields to
> > > > achieve more efficient packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP
> update messages.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> (B) is correct. Wouldn't "and carrying this variable part" be better?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] This sentence is a bit tough to read. Please review
> > > > the suggested text and let us know if this is agreeable or if you
> > > > prefer otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > To achieve efficient packing, this document allows the encoding of
> > > > the SRv6 Service SID either as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs
> > > > or the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> > > > Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and encoding the variable
> > > > (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> > > > specific to that service encoding.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding
> > > > of the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services
> > > > TLVs or the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID
> > > > (e.g., Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and 2) the encoding of
> > > > the variable (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing
> > > > label fields specific to that service encoding.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KT> I get your point. I think the following conveys the correct meaning:
> > > >
> > > > To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the encoding
> > > > of the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services
> > > > TLVs, or
> > > > 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> > > > Locator) in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the
> > > > variable (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label
> > > > fields specific to that service encoding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8950 includes "IPv4 VPN Unicast
> > > > over IPv6 Core" and "IPv4 VPN Multicast over IPv6 Core". Is "IPv4
> > > > VPN over
> > > > IPv6 Core" okay as is, or should it be updated to reflect either
> > > > of these forms?
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
> > > > Over IPv6 Core defined in [RFC8950].
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > A) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4
> > > > VPN unicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
> > > >
> > > > Or
> > > >
> > > > B) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4
> > > > VPN multicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> (A) is correct.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] The following text mentions where Route Types
> > > > 1,2,3,5,6,7, and 8 are defined, but it does not mention where
> > > > Route Type 4 is defined. Is this intentional, or would you like to
> > > > include a citation where Route Type 4 is defined? If so, please
> > > > provide that reference.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > [RFC7432] defines Route
> > > > Types 1, 2, and 3 which carry prefixes and MPLS Label fields; the
> > > > Label fields have a specific use for MPLS encapsulation of EVPN
> > > > traffic. Route Type 5 carrying MPLS label information (and thus
> > > > encapsulation information) for EVPN is defined in [RFC9136]. Route
> > > > Types 6, 7, and 8 are defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy].
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> The Route Type 4 is defined in RFC7432
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html#section-7.4). We don't need to
> refer to it and hence citation is also not required. This is because that route
> type advertisement is unchanged from the base spec RFC7432. The original
> text is therefore intentional.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence from "point-to-point
> > > > services ID" to "point-to-point service IDs"?
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN- VPWS as well as in EVPN
> > > > flexible cross-connect; mainly used to advertise point-to-point
> > > > services ID.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN- VPWS as well as in
> > > > EVPN-flexible cross-connect, mainly to advertise point-to-point
> > > > service IDs.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack. Your suggestion above is better than the original.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] We have included some specific information about
> > > > the IANA text below (mainly FYIs). In addition to reviewing those
> > > > changes, please review all of the IANA-related updates carefully
> > > > and let us know if any further updates are needed.
> > > >
> > > > A) FYI: For values 5 and 6, the Type names do not include "TLV" in
> > > > the "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" subregistry. We will ask IANA to add
> "TLV"
> > > > to the subregistry accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Current (Table 1):
> > > > | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
> > > > + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> > > > | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
> > > >
> > > > Current (IANA registry):
> > > > | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service | RFC 9252 |
> > > > + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> > > > | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service | RFC 9252 |
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > B) FYI: The registration procedures in Tables 2 and 4 do not match
> > > > IANA's registration procedures under the "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV
> > > > Types" and
> > > > "SRv6 Service Sub-Sub-TLV Types" subregistries. We updated these
> > > > tables to match the registries by changing the "Value" and "Type"
> > > > headings to "Range" and "Registration Procedures", respectively;
> > > > moving the value "0" and its corresponding information to Tables 3
> > > > and 5; and changing "Reserved" to "IETF Review" for value 255.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > Value Type
> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > > 0 Reserved
> > > > 0-127 IETF Review
> > > > 128-254 First Come First Served
> > > > 255 Reserved
> > > >
> > > > Current (for Tables 2 and 4):
> > > > Range Registration Procedures
> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > > 0-127 IETF Review
> > > > 128-254 First Come First Served
> > > > 255 IETF Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > C) FYI: Tables 3 and 5 have been updated to match the relevant
> > > > IANA registries. Please review.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] May we update "SRv6 SID Endpoint" to be "SRv6
> > > > Endpoint" to reflect usage throughout the document?
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > The SRv6 SID Endpoint behaviors implementing the services
> > > > signalled in this document are defined in [RFC8986] and hence the
> > > > security considerations of that document apply.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > The SRv6 Endpoint behaviors implementing the services signaled in
> > > > this document are defined in [RFC8986]; hence, the security
> > > > considerations of that document apply.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack. Your suggested change is better than the original.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI: The following reference has been deleted
> > > > from the References section as it was only mentioned within the
> > > > Implementation Status section, which has been deleted per your
> > > > request.
> > > >
> > > > Removed:
> > > > [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]
> > > > Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., Rajaraman, K., and
> > > > A. Dhamija, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment Status",
> > > > draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-13
> > > > (work in progress), March 2022.
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 11) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
> > > > the online Style Guide
> > > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> > > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script
> > > > did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be
> > > > reviewed as a best practice. -->
> > > >
> > > > KT> Looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 12) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology
> > > > appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences
> > > > and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
> > > >
> > > > KT> In general, when referring to the name of a field, TLV/sub-TLV, SID,
> etc. we have used the capitalized versions. In other places, as "normal text",
> there should not be capitalization.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - SRv6 Service vs. SRv6 service
> > > >
> > > > KT> Depends on the usage
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - MPLS Label field vs. MPLS label field
> > > >
> > > > KT> "MPLS Label field" since we are referring to the name of a field.
> > > >
> > > > - Endpoint Behavior vs. Endpoint behavior vs. endpoint behavior
> > > >
> > > > KT> I would think in almost all cases, "Endpoint Behavior" would be
> more appropriate - but please correct me.
> > > >
> > > > - BGP Service vs. BGP service
> > > >
> > > > KT> Depends on the usage
> > > >
> > > > - Transposition Offset vs. transposition offset
> > > > - Transposition Length vs. transposition length
> > > >
> > > > KT> Depends on the usage.
> > > >
> > > > - Transposition Scheme vs. transposition scheme
> > > >
> > > > KT> The capitalized version was used because we are referring to the
> name of the scheme.
> > > >
> > > > KT> There is an error in the draft that has been thankfully caught
> > > > KT> by a WG participant that we would like to fix. Please see the
> > > > KT> thread
> > > > KT>
> here:https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/puPdmGwKmmGMJa
> > > > KT> A_eW_vOM6Bk-k/
> > > >
> > > > The following change is required in the following places:
> > > > - 6.1.1 para 2
> > > > - 6.1.2 para 2
> > > > - 6.2 para 4 and 5
> > > > - 6.2.1 para 1
> > > > - 6.2.2 para 1 and 2
> > > > - 6.5 para 4
> > > >
> > > > OLD: the value is set in the high order 20 bits
> > > > NEW: the value is set in the 24 bits
> > > >
> > > > KT> Additionally, I would like to suggest the following editorial changes:
> > > >
> > > > OLD: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> > > > NEW: If this is going to be replaced by RFC number since it is also in the
> RFCed Q, then that is ok. If not, I would suggest
> [SEGMENT-ROUTING-POLICY].
> > > >
> > > > OLD: [IDR-SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> > > > NEW: [BGP-SR-POLICY]
> > > >
> > > > OLD: [LSR-FLEX-ALGO]
> > > > NEW: [IGP-FLEX-ALGO]
> > > >
> > > > I am yet to do a full review pass and will do so once these updates have
> been incorporated on the full diff against the original text.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ketan
> > > >
> > > > —>
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > RFC Editor/ap
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 15, 2022, at 11:28 AM, Ketan Talaulikar
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alanna,
> > > > >
> > > > > For some reason, I am unable to locate your first email (the one with
> the questions?) in my mailbox. Could you please resend it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ketan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:28 AM Alanna Paloma
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > Authors and *Andrew (AD),
> > > > >
> > > > > *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from
> > > > > “SHOULD” to “MUST” in Section 3.1 in the diff file below.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that Bruno’s response only answered query 4). Please review
> > > > > our previous mail (sent on June 10, 2022) to review and respond the
> the remaining queries.
> > > > >
> > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> > > > >
> > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here:
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> > > > > (comprehensive diff)
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html (all
> > > > > AUTH48 changes)
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html
> > > > > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html
> > > > > (rfcdiff between last version and this)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change
> > > > > once published as RFCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will await responses to our queries and any further changes
> > > > > you may have, as well as approvals from each author and the *AD
> prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > RFC Editor/ap
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:16 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Andrew, ADs, Ketan 1rst & 2nd questions are for you. And
> checking the 3rd would be safer. Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi RFC Editor, all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the work.
> > > > > > I've reviewed the diff and the full text.
> > > > > > Please find below some proposed changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > §3.1
> > > > > > In this doc, the semantic of all reserved fields are specified as MUST
> on the sender side, and MUST on the receiver side. (which is my personal
> preference, but I ignore if there is an IETF guideline on this) e.g.
> > > > > > " RESERVED1 (1 octet):
> > > > > > This field MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the
> > > > > > receiver."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > except the following text which is specified as SHOULD, MUST:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " SRv6 Service SID Flags (1 octet):
> > > > > > This field encodes SRv6 Service SID Flags -- none are
> > > > > > currently defined. It SHOULD be set to 0 by the sender and any
> > > > > > unknown flags MUST be ignored by the receiver."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For consistency in this doc, I would propose
> > > > > > OLD: SHOULD
> > > > > > NEW: MUST
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > §5
> > > > > > " For service over SRv6 core, the egress PE sets the next hop to one
> of its IPv6 addresses."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > May be a personal preference, but I would prefer to make it explicit
> that "next hop" refers to the BGP Next Hop, as otherwise it would potentially
> be understood as the forwarding next hop of the egress PE (toward its CE),
> especially since the long previous paragraph refers to routing tables rather
> than BGP messages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD: the egress PE sets the next hop
> > > > > > NEW: the egress PE sets the BGP Next Hop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (next hop, next-hop, Next-Hop or whatever is usually used
> > > > > > equally works for me)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > §10.2
> > > > > > " [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
> > > > > > Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A.,
> > > > > > and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
> > > > > > Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-
> > > > > > segment-routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
> > > > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
> > > > > > segment-routing-policy-22>.
> > > > > > "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The name of the reference seems (extremely) misleading to me.
> > > > > > I would assume a typo
> > > > > > OLD: [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
> > > > > > NEW: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > §2
> > > > > > " TLV Type (1 octet):
> > > > > > This field is assigned values from IANA's "BGP Prefix-SID TLV
> > > > > > Types" subregistry."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD: values
> > > > > > NEW: a value
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > "Any unrecognized, received Sub-TLVs and Sub-Sub-TLVs MUST be
> removed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Personally I would not put a comma. But English typo is definitely
> not my expertise. So totally up to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > §3
> > > > > > "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
> > > > > > This field identifies the type of SRv6 service information. It
> > > > > > is assigned values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types"
> > > > > > subregistry."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD: values
> > > > > > NEW: a value
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > §3.2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
> > > > > > This field identifies the type of Sub-Sub-TLV. It is assigned
> > > > > > values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types"
> > > > > > subregistry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD: values
> > > > > > NEW: a value
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > §3.2.1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " While for an SRv6
> > > > > > SID, where the FL is 24 bits and only the lower order 20 bits
> > > > > > are transposed (e.g., due to the limit of the MPLS label field
> > > > > > size), the transposition offset is set to 68 and the
> > > > > > transposition length is set to 20."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would not put the first comma. And I could rather use "for which"
> rather than "where"
> > > > > > OLD: While for an SRv6 SID, where the FL is 24 bits
> > > > > > NEW: While for an SRv6SID for which the FL is 24 bits
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However English is not my first language, so totally up to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > §5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD: When the BGP route is received at an ingress PE is
> > > > > > colored with a Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6
> > > > > > Policy is available, the steering for service flows is
> > > > > > performed, as described in Section 8
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NEW: When the BGP route received at an ingress PE is colored
> > > > > > with a Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6 Policy is
> > > > > > available, the steering for service flows is performed as
> > > > > > described in Section 8
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > :s/is received/received
> > > > > > :s/is performed, as described/ is performed as described
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > §6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Idem above. (except that the 2nd correction is already in
> > > > > > place)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Orange Restricted
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 10:56 PM
> > > > > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > > > > [e-mail]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
> > > > > > <[e-mail]>;
> > > > > > [e-mail];[e-mail]
> > > > > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > > Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252
> > > > > > <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Updated 2022/06/10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RFC Author(s):
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been
> > > > > > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be
> published as an RFC.
> > > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several
> > > > > > remedies available as listed in the FAQ
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other
> > > > > > parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary
> > > > > > before providing your approval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Planning your review
> > > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * RFC Editor questions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
> > > > > > Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments
> > > > > > marked as
> > > > > > follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> > > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> > > > > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Content
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> > > > > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention
> to:
> > > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> > > > > > - contact information
> > > > > > - references
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> > > > > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP –
> > > > > > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Semantic markup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
> > > > > > elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure
> > > > > > that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details
> > > > > > at <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Formatted output
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> > > > > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
> > > > > > file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have
> > > > > > formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Submitting changes
> > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY
> > > > > > ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
> > > > > > changes. The parties
> > > > > > include:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * your coauthors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> > > > > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> > > > > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * [e-mail], which is a new archival
> > > > > > mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an
> > > > > > active discussion
> > > > > > list:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * More info:
> > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4
> > > > > > Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * The archive itself:
> > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
> > > > > > out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
> > > > > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
> > > > > > you have dropped the address. When the discussion is
> > > > > > concluded, [e-mail] will be re-added to
> > > > > > the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of
> > > > > > changes in this format
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OLD:
> > > > > > old text
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NEW:
> > > > > > new text
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> > > > > > explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
> > > > > > that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new
> > > > > > text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information
> > > > > > about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes
> do not require approval from a stream manager.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Approving for publication
> > > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this
> > > > > > email stating that you approve this RFC for publication.
> > > > > > Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CC’ed on this message
> need to see your approval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Files
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The files are available here:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diff file of the text:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-rfcdiff.html (side
> > > > > > by side)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diff of the XML:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-xmldiff1.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of
> > > > > > your own diff files of the XML.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.original.v2v3.xml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> > > > > > updates
> > > > > > only:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.form.xml
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tracking progress
> > > > > > -----------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RFC Editor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > > > RFC9252 (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Title : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
> > > > > > Author(s) : G. Dawra, Ed., K. Talaulikar, Ed., R. Raszuk, B.
> > > > > > Decraene, S. Zhuang, J. Rabadan WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci,
> > > > > > Stephane Litkowski Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John
> > > > > > Scudder, Andrew Alston
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___
> > > > > >
> ___________________________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
> > > > > > informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent
> > > > > > donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation.
> > > > > > Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a
> l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > > > > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should
> not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > > > > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> > > > > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
> have been modified, changed or falsified.
> > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>