Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-13> for your review

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor

I have attempted to answer all rfced questions in this email and numbered them,
includeed also a few other points to fix - all listed as (n).

If this is ok. pls fixup the text according to the answers (hopefully i did not
overlook any), and i will do another full read on the then final text.

Cheers
    toerless

(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 -->

Toerless: Agreed. Please change accordingly.

(2) Toerless: Please change the email address [e-mail] to [e-mail]
(i am trying to give up on that +ietf thingy, not working too well).

(3) Toerless: I am observing that Michael Menths University was in prior
RFC written as "University of Tuebingen", whereas you choose to
use the German Umlaut "University of Tübingen". Maybe Michael has
an opinion which one to prefer. (i am fine with eithre).

(4) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
<keyword>example</keyword>

Toerless:

BIER
BIER-TE
controller
ECMP
forwarding
traffic-engineering
multicast
pseudocode
routing
traffic-steering
tree-steering

(5) <!-- [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.) -->

Toerless: Yes, that comended out section should please also be removed from the XML of the RFC.
    
(6) <!-- [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.

Toerless: The changes are fine, but

a) According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt,
IGP has a (*), so you may also choose to remove the expansion and just keep
the TLA (your choice).

b) if you think IGRP usually refers to
Cisco IGRP, can you please have accordingly the following line be aded to

https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

IGRP     - Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (precursor of EIGRP/RFC7868)

Unless you officially nail this down in your list of abbreviation, authors
may continue to use this original definition of IGRP meaning all interior
gateway protocols. E.g:

  rfc7576: interior gateway routing protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS

(7) <!-- [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.

Toerless: Ok.

(8) <!-- [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.

Toerless: Ok.

(9) <!-- [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".

Toerless: please change to:

To to explicitly distinguish routed/tunneled forwarding of BIER-TE packets
from Layer 2 forwarding (forward_connected()), these adjacencies are called
"forward_routed()" adjacencies. 

(10) <!-- [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.

Toerless: great!

(11) <!-- [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".

The goal was more to say "may not have Bfr-ID" (Bfr-ID are calculated
from BP). And this can actually be an issue, which my sentence didn't
highlight, and your rewrite makes it sound as if there is no challenge.

Suggest the following rewrite. The additional reference to 5.3.3 is to the
place where the challenge is discussed.

The BIER-TE layer forwarding plane does not require BFRs to have a unique BP, see Section 5.1.3.
Therefore, BFR may not have unique BFR-id, See Section 5.3.3. 

(12) [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.

Yes

(13) [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?).

I suggest the following sentence rewrite if that is better readable for you.

In the (non-TE) BIER architecture [RFC8279], BIER control plane
and BIER forwarding plane are not explicitly separated from each other,
but are summarized together in Section 4.2 of [RFC8279].

(14) [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.

Yes

(15) [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.

Good catch. Entropy is discussed in 4.2.3.

Maybe replace sentence with:

BitStrings are discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, Section 3.5 and Section 5.3.4, Entropy in Section 4.2.3.

(16) [rfced] Section 3.2:  To what does "the main responsibility"
refer?  If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify.

Suggested text:

Different aspects
 of this point, as well as the next point, are discussed
 throughout Section 3.2.1 and in Section 4.3. The main component
 responsible for these two points is the Multicast Flow
 Overlay (Section 3.1), which is architecturally inherited from
 BIER.

(17) [rfced] Regarding this note from you: [RFC-Editor: the following text

Maybe manually refine current 

  (Section 3.2)

as

  (Section 3.2, BIER-TE tree control, point 2.)

Section 3.2 is very long, so the pointer to the section alone is not very helpful.

(18) [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.

perfect!

(19) [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.

Yes. Please make that change.

I tend to write abbreviation or expansions of terms often based on how i feel
it would sound best for one particular sentence (can it afford the
expansion), but that approach its not very logical and consistent.
Thanks for insisting consistency.

(20) [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.

Correct, but both RFC8279 and i hope rfc9262 are introducing new terms
with parenthesis -> "Software-Defined Network". Please add.

(21) [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.

Yes, it is for policy reason,b ut i am not sure your sentence is
easier to read than my original.

How about:

Likewise, the BitString from
the same BFIR to the same set of BFER can be different for different
overlay flows if different policies should be applied to those overlay
flows, such as shortest path trees, Steiner
trees (minimum cost trees), diverse path trees for redundancy and so.

If you don't like it better than your suggestion, then pls. use
your suggestion.

(22) [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

Yes, the citation is correct, just the terminology has not been
aligned well.

(23) [rfced] Section 3.2.1.4:  For ease of the reader, we expanded
"FRR" as "Fast Reroute".  Please let us know any objections.

This is fine. But check for consistency for how to write a term
that's first time mentioned and abbreviation introduced, e.g

"Fast ReRoute" (FRR)

(24) [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.

Perfect.

(25) [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.

Corect. Pls consider parenthesis for the expanded term.

(26) [rfced] Section 3.4:  Does "This" mean "This process", "This
calculation", or something else?  Please clarify.

How about:
BIER relies on the routing underlay to calculate paths towards BFERs
 and derive next-hop BFR adjacencies for those paths.  These two steps commonly
 rely on BIER specific extensions to the routing protocols of the
 routing underlay but may also be established by a controller. 

Aka: (a) calculate paths,... and (b) derive next hops => two steps.

(27) [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.

Yes correct. Consider quoting.

(28) [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.

Suggested:
 The key elements needed to effect Traffic Engineering are
 policy, path steering, and resource management. -->

Correct.

(29) [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?).

Correct. 

(30) [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".

Suggestion is good, but would "is constructed" not be better than
"would be constructed" ? Pick your favorite!

(31) [rfced] Section 4.1:  Does "those adjacencies forwarding
entries" mean "those adjacencies that forward entries", "those
 adjacencies' forwarding entries", or something else?

Suggestion:
 In BIER-TE, each BIFT-index and therefore SI:BP indicates one or 
 in case of reuse of SI:BP more than one adjacencies between BFRs
 in the topology. The SI:BP is populated with the adjacency on the
 upstream BFR of the adjacency.

(32) [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.

Correct.

(33) [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.

Suggested rewrite:
 The BIFT is then used to forward packets, according to the procedures
 of the BIER-TE Forwarding Plane as specified in Section 3.3.

(34) [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

(35) [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.

Yes, this is correct. I hope this is clear to readers, because
section 5. is called "BIER-TE Controller Operational Considerations",
aka: its all about the controller.

(35b) When reviewing (36) below, i noted that the following
descriptoin is not good:

Replace:
  that will cause a packet to be forwarded by the routing underlay towards
  the adjacent BFR

With

  that will cause a packet to be forwarded by the routing underlay towards
  the BFR indicates via the l3-neighbor parameter of the forward_route() adjacency.

(36) [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.

Suggested rewrite is fine.

(37) [rfced] Section 4.3:  We found the wording of this sentence
confusing, as it does prompted us to BIER.</t> 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.

Nice. Suggested rewrite is fine, maybe add "either" ?

... and is not discussed in [RFC8279] either.

(38) [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?

The rewrite is fine. It is still terrible english german (long context).

How about beaking the sentence apart as follows:

  Assume that a fixed mapping ... Section 5. (full stop after 5.)
  In this case, it is necessary...

If you think this makes it better readable, pleasse use, else stick
to only your suggestion.

(39) [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>. -->

Seems to be fine. I would be mostly worried that the type will at some
point be used to provide more fancy formatting that might not fit, but
given how everybody uses pseudocode differently, i think there is a
slim chance for this to happen for pseudocode.

I would suggest though to use a tag "pseudocode-bier", because i think
in general, no two pseudocodes across different RFCs will use the same
syntax (this is an issue we need to work on some time), except for
example here, where i reuse exactly the rfc8279 pseudocode (but i have
other drafts not related to bier that have other pseudocodes in it).
That way, your rfc-editor.org URL would start listing multiple different
pseudocodes and it would be easier to to see who is all using pseudocodes.

(40) [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".

Correct.

(41) [rfced] Section 4.4:  This sentence does not parse.  If the
suggested text is not correct, please clarify.

Correct.

(42) [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"?

Yes, please do so. 
Exponent is just "2", but given how superscription does not show in txt rendering,
maybe best to write SI*BSL^2 - makes it easier to read IMHO.

(43) [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_"?).

All uses of forwarded_* are typos and should be forward_*()
routed or connected. Sorry. I missed adding the () to them because
i wasn't looking for forwarded_* either.

(44) [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.

Yes. It stands for point-to-point. Replace the abbreviation pls.
rfc9262

(45) [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)?

Yes. As follows:

            BFR1
             |p1
    LAN1---+-+---+-----+
         p3|   p4|   p2|
         BFR3  BFR4  BFR7


(46) [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?

Suggested text:

This optimization does not work in the case of BFRs redundantly
connected to more than one LAN with this optimization. These
BFRs would receive duplicates and forward those duplicates into the
other LANs. Such BFRs require separate bit positions for each LAN they
connect to.

(47) [rfced] Section 5.1.6:

Singular "ring" is correct.

(48) [rfced] Section 5.1.7:  Regarding this question from you

Thanks. Looks fine to me now.
But already looked fine to me before (not going to become a native speaker any time soon ;-)

(49) [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?

Colon refers to the following paragraph, but yes, i think thats not correct english.

Maybe amend text:

the set of useful path choices:

the set of useful path choices, as in the following example.

I don't think indepntation of that following paraph is necessary with this
lead-in.

(50) [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".

It refers to areas 2...6. Maybe introduce the term earlier:

Replace:
   and areas 2...6 contain
With:
   and the five areas 2...6 contain

But any way you you think reads best is fine with me.

And yes, "from the core" is correct. Please apply fix.

(51) [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".

This is fine. Thanks.

(52) [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.

Replace:
  the same: Packets that

With:
  the same: Multicast Flow Overlay packets that

(aka: the BFIR receives one multicast flow overlay packet and needs
to generate multiple BIER/BIER-TE packets from it).

Suggest also to replace: 
  in different SIs or sub-domains require different BIER packets
with:
  in different SIs or sub-domains require multiple BIER packets

(53) [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.

That whole first sentence of the paragraph is ugly and i think the
text will become better by skipping it instead of attempting to explain it.

Please replace paragraph with:

SI and sub-domain have different purposes in the BIER architecture
also also the BIER-TE archtecture.  This impacts how operators are managing them and
how especially flow overlays will likely use them.

(54) [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.

Looks nice. Thanks.

(55) [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.

Yes, correct. Thanks.

(56) [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.

their was meant to refer only to BIER.

Please replace text with:

A.  BIER and BIER-TE have different BFR-ids in the same subdomain.
    This allows higher replication efficiency for BIER because the
    BIER BFR-ids can be assigned sequentially, while the
    BitStrings for BIER-TE will also have to assign the additional bits for
    the topology adjacencies. -->

(57) [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.

Replacement is fine. Thanks.

(58) [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.

Replacement is fine. Thanks.

(59) [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?

The ":" refers to the next paragraph. Maybe replace ":" with "as follows." ?
Don't think indentation would look good here.

(60) [rfced] Section 5.3.6.2: 
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".

Please modify your replacement as follows:

Replace:
  In each packet, these bits in turn indicate bits for the topology and
  the BFERs in that topology, plus
With
  In each packet, the BitString includes bits for one area and
  the BFERs in that area, plus

(61) [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.

Suggest to replace:
  the results of the routing protocol

With:
  the information that BIER-TE learns from the routing protocol (routes, next-hops, BFR-ids, ...)

(62) [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".

Perfect.

(63) [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.

Please replace:
  relies on source routing via the definition of a BitString,
With
  relies on source routing (via a BitString),

Because: the way you emphasize the comaprison with bullet points would make
it more worrysome to read that SR also has BitStrings (which it doesnt). Only
the source-routing is shared.

rest of changes are fine. Thanks.

(64) [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.

I could not find on those URLs a place where "native" was listed as problematic,
where/what is the script you are using ?

I had a set of discussions about the use of the word native at IETF114,
including with Andrew Alston who told me how its use in parts of africa might
be life threatening, so i am aware of possible concerns. However:

The term has been widely used in RFCs and especially in multicast contexts,
and i really would want to have some reference URL from rfc-editor where you track ideally single
recommended replacement words (like you track abbreviations). It is
a widely used technical term and i had to search several times through RFCs
with this term to find stuff. So i want to make sure that when we replace it,
we do not end up with a hodge-podge of differrent new terms that would
make searching and recognition of the term more difficult.

Aka: If this does not exist, and if you permit me to keep the word, i would
choose that option right now. But i encourage you to work towards a replacement
tracking service for future RFCs, and i am happy to chime in support of that
if that would help.

(65) [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the
following:

a) Very thorough work on consistent terms. All good. Thanks a lot!

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?)

The / was meant as an abbrebiation of accelerated and/or hardware forwarding.
The problem is that there is no good solid term to use. I think its
fine to just use accelerated hardware forwarding (remove /). I am sure that ANY variation
we pick would have one or the other reader that does not like it ;-(

> capitalization:

  BIER-TE controller 
  BIER-TE topology
  entropy 
  flow overlay
  forwarding pseudocode
  multicast flow overlay

E.g.: i think we do not want to introduce new names (and hence capitalized spelling),
aka: no capitalization in running text, just keep it, where it exists in titles or pictures.

> IP/IPv6

E.g.: do not use IPv4, but use IP instead. Thats correct IETF language. IPv4
is just waht i like to emphasize its not IPv6.

> leaf BFER

agree with your argument to remove hyphen.

> should "SI:BitStrings" be "SIs:BitStrings"?

Yes.


Thank you so much again!

Toerless

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 06:40:53PM -0700, [e-mail] 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
>    
>    *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> 
>    *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>       IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>       responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>      
>    *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>       to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>       list:
>      
>      *  More info:
>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>      
>      *  The archive itself:
>         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> 
>      *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>         of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>         If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>         have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>         [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>         its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
> 
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> 
> An update to the provided XML file
>  — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
> 
> Section # (or indicate Global)
> 
> OLD:
> old text
> 
> NEW:
> new text
> 
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> 
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> 
> 
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
> 
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties 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)
> 
> This file will allow you to more easily view changes in any text that was moved (e.g., acknowledgements; some paragraphs were moved before or after the figures):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9262-alt-diff.html
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]