Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12> for your review
Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> Fri, 22 September 2023 15:18 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.mcbride@futurewei.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 A7191C151073; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PB9wZ8FUgw6p; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11on20700.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:7eae::700]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3E5C15106D; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=lWH4srkwg4h/WNbQzgJfF/ZHxAxh5PUwNVS/8RtBSVS4P/ifrL3XNnvNvoeMeUys21l6QoFMAOzEbOm8iypstwzuhDjm4GYHvFxX4gUQ0rm6zmzpbrk4xaeSEZIsl50vFY8156BPmyjdVonj0AabnfF9Fb3V1rk10C6Gz5Q/TX+KIbYI9NJyiEcseSKdTMsMX1kLWh0G3O6mowU2eHiKmd8VQwIE4m+rtjy60k+O/M3vboJ63IQDRech5QYeE6lQPPRrcL1k2OH9UXhfTRo5+LjAR9prFLe2TKGwKr/LSGfKAJgnxpoe9FZwQuGQaYA2ODDr2fy8Po6+K1SekzdkJQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=eXkXUVpO8zJbJi2ClHkeDbwhCAbo0N2pw4zIxBP/hGQ=; b=nbwqlFzGRB9hS00p4E77paSnSjacT84zvUtw1U6/ROxm2umEl/WpfAAhQSkcyE3TnWO+nlvDF+0/YwJ1lVn3qxF6/nlCROGL8fQaJyWA6F9md+7qC4Y0wS2ln9iNO5mBipGwq+AIPpa1ygJhJmyljxOjLzefzO3/M2M/3hd4hX5fiuAdTIaeQOzrNKaoAktaxT9bPpRUZxR2q70prmqAIGVttknJ/jbJXUiGXQqcOaAEL2XUBcDML+iwZghWC5F5KqHldcfNJ0zN49T7TEWz6wi2zECaLL8AwZErKmhD/n9vObZfw5QrD5/cGl7Q7ahfdM5UGrFuFZTR1ohsP/dETQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=eXkXUVpO8zJbJi2ClHkeDbwhCAbo0N2pw4zIxBP/hGQ=; b=AQLbOYY4L2pom4aTsC60UaH+/zUg+Co8cMGsD3jRRTBw1szJGno55bmCFpuSo2g49vP2yelkp/aKf5geubon1kQNJhsvGbBnOjup9EEUUbh7nF6UoyjpL55Oz9OJSmv3kowfn8jtxaFN2DHnHR4AFkjIbTrMvltHQnj7V+lAUJQ=
Received: from CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:164::5) by MW3PR13MB4106.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:56::9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.6813.20; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 15:18:06 +0000
Received: from CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8abb:c530:4c4:15ab]) by CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8abb:c530:4c4:15ab%4]) with mapi id 15.20.6813.018; Fri, 22 Sep 2023 15:18:06 +0000
From: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
To: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>, "tte@cs.fau.de" <tte@cs.fau.de>, "stig@venaas.com" <stig@venaas.com>, "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "pim-ads@ietf.org" <pim-ads@ietf.org>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12> for your review
Thread-Index: AQHZ7KSaFx6bxnLB1Um1fYEIbKeCnbAm48wAgAASG5A=
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 15:18:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CO3PR13MB575212F6BA2AC41423ED7B5CF4FFA@CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230914202441.0EC39E7297@rfcpa.amsl.com> <721802C1-3D71-485C-9104-99887D2B32F6@amsl.com> <75986716-6C0D-40C5-A096-19A00C7CD266@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <75986716-6C0D-40C5-A096-19A00C7CD266@amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=futurewei.com;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CO3PR13MB5752:EE_|MW3PR13MB4106:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a286cf84-2097-4760-73de-08dbbb7f1f25
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ok7c41lBYTdixwZwfguai2Lvgor61lmHkUqGbieQUjuFdkL8eDGwj4SvxBkK0ShcP32gUZKyaGS8LNsnN0KCXzJUc0q9l0x9TfmrEL7LZ+CWBnBqa6/UT/BAT8dkt484QS2lNs9zHcK3jB6k1bti9BpDQRioTsX7gH9pppK8W8F4fzLQsKJz706xnLod5Vd+/S9Ad3zR2z14wkOKod9/CrYAqMf5smZ5s0N9L8pjVa/R93iib4TcXZGaflylb+R5du8djGR2TPwyJHEAJMTpYLw2ZQ9QiSdQqWTttGxf/ISm3jgS+ja7GpRtbRujk6wE/KnED04hZ9w00t3pisbahL7BxbrzSWhnXmcOZxNqQVpGosTRMfmH8YJivBfhNM9JNE/27GRMde5w83ikN4uaqMllDfJGE+4BB0ZLlvsnEWSQVLSp2SLJJaZbWMRiZUlkA39A3O/UYLwdByFn6tqSBRzmrV0mFLz04OvHwD0qoPLCxeX4A+5RUVGKK7fEe1aYuY1arLFjcZ/DbSFSdHwSfvm27I6TXn0Nj7qOzIUrQc3wMBbgWG+/SdAna85RaMG2gt6jE6vn9AeILmxthT/D1/uHsBU9zMALdZJndZXk/YkAYihHkDiIuKFqjOi9vZvTDf/PDLvBoRM4ZwOB921+IgPFLvRZZNrtwehtiuz5tT5TOxPxMdXtc8eV3C/9D1md8EdFreD/ilfpV3H3JIQMig==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(136003)(366004)(396003)(376002)(39840400004)(346002)(1800799009)(186009)(451199024)(45080400002)(53546011)(71200400001)(122000001)(66556008)(66946007)(66446008)(64756008)(66476007)(316002)(83380400001)(7696005)(6506007)(9686003)(921005)(478600001)(33656002)(966005)(55016003)(5660300002)(52536014)(110136005)(76116006)(8676002)(38070700005)(38100700002)(8936002)(2906002)(30864003)(86362001)(7416002)(41300700001)(579004)(559001)(19607625013); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO3PR13MB5752.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a286cf84-2097-4760-73de-08dbbb7f1f25
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Sep 2023 15:18:06.0619 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: LXzjSPVRw8K+To7W4rIVjFUHMRgDFC+5T0OvAu15p39NAK1wVfeBQnQ64Ga8nmZFvV8b3NGkNS38BBaKuI5YHA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW3PR13MB4106
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/eg1jb55i0nb20IfI8kSxfwD2BjQ>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12> 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 Sep 2023 15:18:18 -0000
Ok so it bounced for me in this thread as well, getting an outlook error. When I reply to an email she initiates, or when I initiate a new email just to her, it works. So we will need to wait for her response tomorrow. But, again, that email is valid, sort of 😉. mike -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:11 AM To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>; tte@cs.fau.de; stig@venaas.com; Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>; zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn; pim-chairs@ietf.org; pim-ads@ietf.org; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12> for your review Hi Authors, We received a bounce message for Zheng(Sandy) Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>. Do you know if this is still a valid email address? Please provide us with updated contact information. Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Sep 21, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. > > Please see the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process. > > Please note that the AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: > http://www.r/ > fc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9466&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futu > rewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1 > d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo > iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C% > 7C%7C&sdata=gDGVp5ODeK7zcPGuSe911fLJIAv4NfhZ%2FAsClWZGkTY%3D&reserved= > 0 > > AUTH48 FAQs are available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48. > > We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/st > >> On Sep 14, 2023, at 3:24 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Authors and *AD, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> *AD, please review question #1. >> >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD - Please review the diff between version 11 and >> version 12 (note that version 11 was approved for publication) and >> let us know if you approve the following changes: >> >> - change in Section 2 (L5 to L3) >> - deleted text in Section 3.3.1 >> >> https://aut/ >> hor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12 >> &data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782f >> b08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C6383098864 >> 88749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi >> LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d0IyutNbIAhXVRRP >> DpZPrxlF7MHY7NvergXFKZeINXo%3D&reserved=0 >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear >> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] This is a question for author Zheng Zhang. Please let >> us know how you would like your name to appear in the Authors' >> Addresses section for this document. We will make note of your >> preference for future documents as well. >> >> This form is used in this document and 9279: >> Zheng(Sandy) Zhang >> >> This form was used in 8916: >> Zheng Zhang >> >> If we keep the form with "Sandy", may we add a space before the first >> parentheses (i.e., "Zheng (Sandy) Zhang")? >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review "PIM-SM shared LAN networks" in the >> following sentences from the abstract and introduction and let us know if "PIM-SM" >> is needed in this context. We see "shared LAN network" used elsewhere >> in the document, and PIM-SM is used in the next sentence of the >> abstract (included for context). Or should this text be updated to >> "When PIM-SM is used in shared LAN networks" or something similar? >> >> Original: >> In PIM-SM shared LAN networks, there is often more than one upstream >> router. When PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), including PIM Source >> Specific-Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM), is used, this can lead to >> duplicate IP multicast packets being forwarded by these PIM routers. >> ... >> In PIM-SM shared LAN networks, there is typically more than one >> upstream router. >> >> Perhaps (remove "PIM-SM" from "PIM-SM shared LAN networks"): >> In shared LAN networks, there is often more than one upstream >> router. When PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), including PIM Source >> Specific-Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM), is used, this can lead to >> duplicate IP multicast packets being forwarded by these PIM routers. >> .. >> In shared LAN networks, there is typically more than one upstream >> router. >> >> Or (recast sentences): >> When PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), including PIM Source >> Specific-Specific Multicast (PIM-SSM), is used in shared LAN >> networks, there is often more than one upstream router. This can >> lead to duplicate IP multicast packets being forwarded by these PIM routers. >> .. >> When PIM-SM is used in shared LAN networks, there is typically more >> than one upstream router. >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] In Terminology section (i.e., Section 1.2), would you >> like to list the abbreviations in alphabetical order? Or do you >> prefer the current order? >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Should "assert process" here be updated to "assert processing"? >> Or is the current correct? >> >> Original: >> ... there may be multiple upstream routers, which can cause >> duplicate multicast traffic to be forwarded and assert process to occur. >> --> >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Should "PIM assert small packets" here be updated to >> "small PIM assert packets"? >> >> Original: >> The PIM >> routers need to process a large number of PIM assert small packets >> in a very short time. As a result, the device load is very large. >> >> Perhaps: >> The PIM >> routers need to process a large number of small PIM assert packets >> in a very short time. As a result, the device load is very large. >> --> >> >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review "something not possible equally with" >> here. Is the intent "something not possible"? >> >> Original: >> For example various L2 technologies for rings provide sub 50 msec >> failover mechanisms, something not possible equally with an L3 >> subnet based ring. >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review "Assert packing introduces" here. >> Should this read "This document introduces..."? Or something else? >> >> Original: >> Assert packing introduces two new PIM Assert message encodings >> through the allocation and use of two flags in the PIM Assert message >> header [I-D.ietf-pim-rfc8736bis], the Packed (P) and the Aggregated >> (A) flags. >> --> >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to use the same phrasing at the >> beginning of these sentences? >> >> Original: >> If the (P)acked flag is 0, the message is a (non-packed) PIM Assert >> message as specified in [RFC7761]. See Section 4.2. In this case, >> the (A) flag MUST be set to 0, and MUST be ignored on receipt. >> >> If the (P) flag is 1, then the message is called a PackedAssert >> message and the type and hence encoding format of the payload is >> determined by the (A) flag. >> >> If A=0, then the message body is a sequence of assert records. This >> is called a "Simple PackedAssert" message. See Section 4.3. >> >> If A=1, then the message body is a sequence of aggregated assert >> records. This is called an "Aggregated PackedAssert". See Section >> 4.4. >> >> Perhaps: >> If the P flag is 0,... >> >> If the P flag is 1,... >> >> If the A flag is 0,... >> >> If the A flag is 1,... >> >> Or: >> If P=0,... >> >> If P=1,... >> >> If A=0,... >> >> If A=1,... >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review "RP Aggregation Records" here. Is the intended meaning "RP Aggregated Assert Records"? >> >> Original: >> RP Aggregation Records provide a more compact encoding than the >> Simple PackedAssert message format for (*,G) flows. >> >> Perhaps: >> RP Aggregated Assert Records provide a more compact encoding than the >> Simple PackedAssert message format for (*,G) flows. >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated this sentence as follows for >> clarity. Please review. >> >> Original: >> It is out of scope of this specification for which conditions, such >> as data-triggered asserts or Assert Timer (AT) expiry- triggered >> asserts, or under which conditions (such as high load) an >> implementation will send PackedAsserts instead of Asserts. >> >> Perhaps: >> The conditions for which (e.g., data-triggered asserts or Assert >> Timer (AT) expiry-triggered asserts) or under which (e.g., high >> load) an implementation will send PackedAsserts instead of Asserts >> are out of scope for this specification. >> --> >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Is "of their [RFC7761] implementation" needed here? >> "Implementations" is used at the beginning of the sentence; perhaps >> it does not need to be repeated. Also, please review "[RFC7761] >> implementation". Is the intent "implementations using PIM-SM [RFC7761]" or "PIM-SM [RFC7761] implementations"? >> >> Original: >> Implementations that introduce support for assert packing from day >> one of their [RFC7761] implementation MAY omit this configuration >> option. >> >> Perhaps: >> PIM-SM [RFC7761] implementations that introduce support for assert >> packing from day one MAY omit this configuration option. >> --> >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review "from other reasons". Should this be >> updated to "for other reasons", "from other sources", or something else? >> >> Original: >> Asserts/PackedAsserts created from reception-triggered assert >> records should be scheduled for serialization with a higher priority >> than those created from other reasons. >> --> >> >> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to split up this long sentence to improve readability? >> >> Original: >> If there are one or more reception-triggered Assert/PackedAssert >> messages already serializing and/or scheduled to be serialized on the >> outgoing interface, then the router can use the time until the last >> of those messages will have finished serializing for PIM processing >> of further conditions that may result in additional reception- >> triggered assert records as well as packing of these assert records >> without introducing additional delay. >> >> Perhaps: >> If one or more reception-triggered Assert/PackedAssert messages are >> already serializing or are scheduled to be serialized on the outgoing >> interface, then the router can use the time until the last of those >> messages has finished serializing for PIM processing of further >> conditions. This may result in additional reception-triggered assert >> records and the packing of these assert records without introducing >> additional delay. >> --> >> >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] May we update "condition" to "case" or "situation" here? >> >> Original: >> Delay in sending PackedAsserts beyond what was discussed in prior >> subsections can still be beneficial when it causes the overall amount >> of (possible) duplicate IP multicast packets to decrease in a >> condition with large number of (S,G) and/or (*,G), compared to the >> situation in which an implementation only sends Assert messages. >> --> >> >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] Should the sentence starting with "Including..." be >> part of the definition of the OptionType field? >> >> Original: >> * OptionType TBD: PIM Packed Assert Capability Hello Option >> >> Including the PIM OptionType TBD indicates support for the ability >> to receive and process all the PackedAssert encodings defined in >> this document. >> >> Current: >> OptionType: 40 (Packed Assert Capability) >> >> Including the PIM OptionType 40 indicates support for the ability to >> receive and process all the PackedAssert encodings defined in this >> document. >> >> Perhaps: >> OptionType: 40 (Packed Assert Capability). Indicates support for the >> ability to receive and process all the PackedAssert encodings defined >> in this document. >> --> >> >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] The text below Figure 1 includes a definition of the >> OptionType field. Would it be helpful to readers to also include a >> definition of the OptionLength field? If so, please provide the text. >> --> >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Should "IP and IPv6" here be updated to "IPv4 and >> IPv6"? Or is the current correct? >> >> Original: >> The Encoded-Group and Encoded-Unicast address formats are specified >> in Section 4.9.1 of [RFC7761] for IP and IPv6. >> --> >> >> >> 20) <!-- [rfced] To avoid awkward hyphenation, we updated "non assert >> packing capable PIM routers" to "PIM routers that are not capable of >> assert packing". Also, please clarify "if this field was used". Can >> this phrase be removed? Or is the intent "if this field is set to a >> value other than zero" or something else? Note that this text appears >> twice in the document. >> >> Original: >> Set to zero on transmission. Serves to make non assert packing >> capable PIM routers fail in parsing the message instead of possible >> mis-parsing if this field was used. >> --> >> >> >> 21) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We moved the "P" and "A" definitions under >> Figure 3 to appear after the "7 6 5 4 3 2" definition as they are >> flag bits. This also matches the order of the definitions under Figure 5. >> --> >> >> >> 22) <!-- [rfced] We have two questions about the text below. >> >> - All of the definitions in the list following Figure 3 are fields in >> the figure, except for the entry for M. M has its own entry but is >> also defined in the last sentence of the "Assert Record" defintion. >> Should the entry for M be removed? Or is the current okay? >> >> - The sentence following the "Assert Record" entry seems redundant >> with the first sentence in the "Assert Record" definition. Please >> review and let us know if any updates are needed. >> >> Original: >> * M: The number of Assert Records in the message. Derived from the >> length of the packet carrying the message. >> >> * Assert Record: formatted according to {FIG-MESSAGE-SIMPLE}}, which >> is the same as the PIM assert message body as specified in >> Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. The number M of Assert Records is >> determined from the packet size. >> >> The format of each Assert Record is the same as the PIM assert >> message body as specified in Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. >> >> Perhaps: >> Assert Record: >> Formatted according to Figure 3, which is the same as the PIM >> Assert message body as specified in Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. >> The number M of Assert Records is determined by the packet size. >> --> >> >> >> 23) <!-- [rfced] FYI - In the list of definitions following Figures 6 >> and 7, we moved the "Reserved" definition entry to correspond with >> the order of the fields in the figure. >> --> >> >> >> 24) <!-- [rfced] In the list of definitions following Figure 8, >> should "Group Address and Reserved" be updated to "Group Address"? >> The Reserved field has its own entry in the list of definitions. >> >> Original: >> * Group Address and Reserved: >> >> As specified in Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. >> >> * Reserved: Set to zero on transmission. Ignored upon receipt. >> >> Perhaps: >> Group Address: >> As specified in Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. >> >> Reserved: >> Set to zero on transmission. Ignored upon receipt. >> --> >> >> >> 25) <!-- [rfced] May we update "should have the Source Address 0" to >> "has Source Address 0"? >> >> Original: >> If this number is not 0 and one of the (*,G) assert records to be >> encoded should have the Source Address 0, then 0 needs to be encoded >> as one of the Source Address fields. >> >> Perhaps: >> If this number is not 0 and one of the (*,G) assert records to be >> encoded has Source Address 0, then 0 needs to be encoded as one of >> the Source Address fields. >> --> >> >> >> 26) <!-- [rfced] IANA Considerations >> >> a) FYI - We updated the titles of Section 4.1 and Figure 1, as well >> as some text in Sections 3, 3.1, and 4.1, to use the IANA-registered >> name "Packed Assert Capability". Please review. >> >> b) May we remove the row with "2-7: Unassigned" in Table 2 as these >> are not assigned by this document? The introductory text says "IANA >> has assigned the following two flag bits...". Also, this will change >> when other bits are assigned in the registry in the future. >> --> >> >> >> 27) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions about this sentence. >> >> - The sentence is difficult to parse. May we recast as follows for clarity? >> >> - Will it be clear to readers what "them" and "they" refer to? >> >> - Please clarify "[RFC7490] with IP repair tunnels" and "[RFC7431] >> for IP multicast". May we update to include the mechanisms defined in >> [RFC7490] and [RFC7431]? See suggested text below. >> >> Original: >> The mere fact that by operating at the IP layer, different solutions >> for IP unicast and multicast are required makes them more difficult >> to operate, they typically require more expensive hardware and >> therefore most often, they are not even available on the target >> equipment, such as [RFC7490] with IP repair tunnels for IP unicast or >> [RFC7431] for IP multicast. >> >> Perhaps: >> When operating at the IP layer, different solutions for IP unicast >> and multicast are required. This makes them more difficult to >> operate, and they typically require more expensive hardware. >> Therefore, they frequently are not even available on the target >> equipment, such as Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute >> (FRR) [RFC7490] with IP repair tunnels for IP unicast or >> Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) [RFC7431] for IP multicast. >> --> >> >> >> 28) <!-- [rfced] May we update "interface that is in a VRF changing" >> and "in a same time" as follows for clarity? >> >> Original: >> The configuration of multicast-enabled VRF (VPN routing and >> forwarding) or interface that is in a VRF changing may cause many >> assert packets to be sent in a same time. >> >> Perhaps: >> The configuration of multicast-enabled VPN Routing and Forwarding >> (VRF) or changes to the interface that is in a VRF may cause many >> assert packets to be sent at the same time. >> --> >> >> >> 29) <!-- [rfced] Are the parentheses needed with "(possible)" and >> "(more advanced)" in these sentences? Or can they be removed? >> >> Original: >> Delay in sending PackedAsserts beyond what was discussed in prior >> subsections can still be beneficial when it causes the overall amount >> of (possible) duplicate IP multicast packets to decrease in a >> condition with large number of (S,G) and/or (*,G), compared to the >> situation in which an implementation only sends Assert messages. >> ... >> This delay can simply be used in implementations because it can not >> support the (more advanced) mechanisms described above, and this >> longer delay can be achieved by some simpler mechanism (such as only >> periodic generation of PackedAsserts) and still achieves an overall >> reduction in duplicate IP multicast packets compared to sending only >> Asserts. >> >> Also, are the parentheses needed with "(non AssertCancel)", >> "(non-packed)", and "(not packed)" in these sentences? Or can they be removed? >> >> Original: >> Loss of >> (non AssertCancel) PackedAssert impacts duplicates for all flows >> packed into the PackedAssert and ... >> As specified in >> Section 3.2, both flags in a (non-packed) PIM Assert message are >> required to be set to 0. >> ... >> If the (P)acked flag is 0, the message is a (non-packed) PIM Assert >> message as specified in [RFC7761]. >> ... >> Instead, sending and receiving of PackedAssert messages as >> specified in the following subsections are logically new >> packetization options for assert records in addition to the (not >> packed) [RFC7761] Assert Message. >> --> >> >> >> 30) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >> >> a) Should "metric-preference and metric" here read "Metric Preference >> and Metric" per the usage elsewhere in the document (i.e., >> capitalization and no hyphen)? >> >> Original: >> The PIM assert message carries information about a single multicast >> source and group, along with the corresponding metric-preference and >> metric of the route towards the source or PIM Rendezvous Point (RP). >> >> Perhaps: >> The PIM assert message carries information about a single multicast >> source and group, along with the corresponding Metric Preference and >> Metric of the route towards the source or PIM Rendezvous Point (RP). >> >> >> b) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the >> form on the right per usage in RFC 7761. Please let us know any objections. >> >> PIM assert message vs. PIM Assert message >> >> assert message vs. Assert message >> >> >> c) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. >> Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. >> >> PIM Assert state vs. PIM assert state >> Note: We see mixed use in RFC 7761. >> >> PIM Asserts vs. PIM asserts >> >> Assert vs. assert (used as a noun, not in context of "Assert >> message", etc.) >> Examples: >> "reception of asserts" >> "triggered the assert" >> "single non-packed Assert" >> "instead of Asserts" >> >> >> d) We see instances of both "assert record" (lowercase) and "Assert Record" >> (capitalized) in the document. The capitalized form is consistently >> used in the context of "Source Aggregated Assert Record" and "RP >> Aggregated Assert Record"; the field name is also consistently >> capitalized (Figures 3 and 5). Please review the following instances >> and let us know if these should remain capitalized or if they should be lowercased. >> >> Original: >> * M: The number of Assert Records in the message. Derived from the >> length of the packet carrying the message. >> ... >> The number M of Assert Records is >> determined from the packet size. >> ... >> The format of each Assert Record is the same as the PIM assert >> message body as specified in Section 4.9.6 of [RFC7761]. >> >> >> e) FYI - We updated "YANG model" to "YANG data model" per recent >> guidance from Benoit Claise and the YANG Doctors. >> --> >> >> >> 31) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for the following >> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please >> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> >> DetNet - Deterministic Networking >> MVPN - Multicast VPN >> --> >> >> >> 32) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >> the online Style Guide >> <https://ww/ >> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05 >> %7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb7 >> 5b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747 >> %7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6 >> Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XcjVk855ou%2F9ZWXVcgPUht >> BNMulNLjoY8mybpoL2v8A%3D&reserved=0> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >> should still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/st/rv >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2023, at 1:20 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2023/09/14 >> >> 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://mai/ >> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe >> 6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7 >> 416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638 >> 309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV >> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dUHn4sYTG >> yAOBJqY18gXHYqZmiQGj0dmsQN3vLbPB00%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * The archive itself: >> >> https://mai/ >> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cm >> ichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0 >> fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknow >> n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL >> CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ra9FrrSg1VeSpqk71b2lo9ZyGGHpc2xpF >> 3yvHefb9dc%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and >> its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> >> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> >> An update to the provided XML file >> — OR — >> An explicit list of changes in this format >> >> Section # (or indicate Global) >> >> OLD: >> old text >> >> NEW: >> new text >> >> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an >> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> >> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that >> seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion >> of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers >> can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. >> >> >> Approving for publication >> -------------------------- >> >> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email >> stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY >> ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> >> >> Files >> ----- >> >> The files are available here: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbrid >> e%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240 >> 189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D >> %7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yHhGAQ0%2FrKPrX7WfP8Y%2BE%2FFw106Gn4d0g%2BnxPJ >> Mv3Lw%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.html&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbri >> de%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b24 >> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs >> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 >> D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kbOawG30uFiIkq21xhPfp414Nr5lRonFQUu0JEoXvks%3 >> D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbrid >> e%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240 >> 189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D >> %7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A1sd%2BM6%2FozzVXVbdyaDbKjR5ItWRQQ14D1rEn%2FZU >> rIY%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbrid >> e%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240 >> 189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb >> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D >> %7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mGKW8NCfrxLk9j%2FW3xenLhULmfPx8B2SNQAIUkNdIoY% >> 3D&reserved=0 >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael. >> mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2 >> a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488749747%7CUnknown%7CTWF >> pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 >> Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KbgGCHTr7nw9l2Q0Wv8XqjA7igLisGv2WJpairJd >> 9PQ%3D&reserved=0 >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cmicha >> el.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8 >> ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnknown%7C >> TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV >> CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mnVI0mALknY3uOeaIku8gq7IR%2FUZfDD%2F% >> 2FB1RMWtJgEk%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) >> >> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where >> text has been deleted or moved): >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466-alt-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cmich >> ael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee >> 8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnknown%7 >> CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX >> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tMaAEn1Nxn0vv8duBkvRPY6wSNY6cKmR685u >> TUEH%2FGw%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C01%7Cmich >> ael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee >> 8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnknown%7 >> CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX >> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GvgB4SddXmv0YtIb2ffCXHyJnNHpJVC1lti0 >> RoUFxRU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >> diff files of the XML. >> >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C01%7C >> michael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C >> 0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnkno >> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi >> LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oLRdxWV0wLKIIUjQEZB6C%2FYbIlpg87 >> 7Gd4gjZF237GE%3D&reserved=0 >> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> only: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9466.form.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.m >> cbride%40futurewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a >> 3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnknown%7CTWFp >> bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M >> n0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3eSq70%2B0jNBTne9D%2BjyEbIKgvcsuvrWQe4RuM >> CpSlko%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www/ >> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9466&data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40f >> uturewei.com%7Cb143facb73b7416782fb08dbbb75b52f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c7 >> 53a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638309886488905975%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey >> JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C30 >> 00%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Vi4dE6XUTw%2F7UmBhZhs3lvzhbfpMVlC9wr%2BdeUCZimM%3D& >> reserved=0 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9466 (draft-ietf-pim-assert-packing-12) >> >> Title : PIM Assert Message Packing >> Author(s) : Y. Liu, Ed., T. Eckert, Ed., M. McBride, Z. Zhang >> WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride >> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston >> >
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… rfc-editor
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-ietf-pim-a… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Michael McBride
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Michael McBride
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… tte@cs.fau.de
- Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <dra… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Michael McBride
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9466 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant