Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Wed, 22 November 2023 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 4D5D4C1519A5; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VS0pjMoSpxzC; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A60BC15152C; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dggpemm100001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4SZjl43RNqzMnJx; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:07:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.229) by dggpemm100001.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:11:55 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.229]) by dggpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.229]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:11:55 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>, "cfilsfil@cisco.com" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, "gdawra.ietf@gmail.com" <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "idr-ads@ietf.org" <idr-ads@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review
Thread-Index: AQHaEMgKKmwAFVzi50mbrOOfVNdvkrBu8BYAgASqYYCACpzVAIAAiPRk///uUYCAAFjtAIAEA9IAgAACRoCAABYUAIAAr0IAgABL44CAAQo5L4AAdqjQ
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 01:11:55 +0000
Message-ID: <530d955d877d43249dc2ad1e07609a11@huawei.com>
References: <20231031000836.92599E7C06@rfcpa.amsl.com> <C93DF302-9A9F-4722-B7E2-76E02AE20035@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPwOVKhx9PCC0p=3nUE+Ur7_GgymycF8XH51PaJEdVdvxA@mail.gmail.com> <99621BD9-F598-493E-A7EF-5CFC1A58249D@amsl.com> <AS2PR02MB8839195317D0C6C62EB6FB18F0B7A@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAH6gdPyqNsbrm4UmhV+R2Y+nH8U8ecWLRMmZ8w4sF3rtdYeXxg@mail.gmail.com> <1019D6B1-EA89-4283-B3DE-656A4C17B855@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPyjn+6q3j1qkCKfqeB8qZM5JJNZ6WsWqw24-zk9vCCM8Q@mail.gmail.com> <3261C128-4494-4754-B2E2-A32A3A9E8227@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPzu+_dgNuPki6D8TVVq=ScJVXBCc7gsXwYVE8S7x_66yA@mail.gmail.com> <79CA6F95-B1ED-433A-BB14-E3F9996A0DA7@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPxvntCYFMUdAc7Uov-dMxRz=pJDQ-4=C8ro+z9F-H_3RA@mail.gmail.com> <AS2PR02MB8839C998DED5B63B559B480BF0BBA@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <C8C8891F-6D2C-4218-833A-AE834299261C@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8C8891F-6D2C-4218-833A-AE834299261C@amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.110.46.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/hMtYF_aRR5ahPutHwFrMrVCd4GY>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 01:12:03 -0000
Hi Alanna, I approve the publication of this document. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 2:05 AM > To: bruno.decraene@orange.com; Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > Cc: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>; cfilsfil@cisco.com; Mach Chen > <mach.chen@huawei.com>; daniel.bernier@bell.ca; gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; > Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; RFC Editor > <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; idr-ads@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; > shares@ndzh.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> > for your review > > Hi Ketan and Bruno, > > Thank you for your replies. Your approvals have been noted on the AUTH48 > status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > Ketan - We have updated the files with your proposed text. > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html (diff showing > changes where text is moved or deleted) > > We will await approvals from Gaurav, Clarence, Mach, Daniel, and the AD > prior to moving this document forward. > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Nov 21, 2023, at 2:12 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > Thanks for the edits. > > > > I approve the document. > > > > Thanks, > > --Bruno > > > > > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 6:41 AM > > To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > > Cc: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET > > <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; cfilsfil@cisco.com; > mach.chen@huawei.com; > > daniel.bernier@bell.ca; gdawra.ietf@gmail.com; Alvaro Retana > > <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; > > idr-ads@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 > > <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > After reviewing the full text, I would suggest the following text > > change > > > > OLD: > > Only undefined flags MUST be set to 0 when originating and ignored on > receipt. > > > > NEW: > > Undefined flags MUST be set to 0 when originating and ignored on receipt. > > > > Along with the above change, please take this as an approval from my side. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:43 AM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > Hi Ketan, > > > > We have updated that text in the files. > > > > Updated XML file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > > > Updated output files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > > > Diff files showing all changes: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side > diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html (diff > > showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > most recent version. > > > > We will await approvals from each author and the AD prior to moving > forward in the publication process. > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > On Nov 20, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alanna, > > > > > > This text works. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:16 PM Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Ketan, > > > > > > Thank you for clarifying. Does the following text work? > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP > > > EPE or for advertisement of SRv6 SIDs using Direct as the Protocol- > > > ID. Only undefined flags MUST be set to 0 when originating and > > > ignored on receipt. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2023, at 8:27 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > > > > > Please check inline below. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:39 AM Madison Church > <mchurch@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Ketan and Bruno, > > > > > > > > Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the document > accordingly. We just have one followup item. > > > > > > > > For the following: > > > > > There is one issue with the changed text for "Flags" field in Section 7.1. > The following sentence applies only for BGP EPE and Direct: > > > > > > > > > > Flags MUST be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > > > > > > However, the breaking of the sentence could make a reader think as if > it also applied to OSPF and ISIS. Can this be rephrased for clarity? > > > > > > > > Thank you for pointing this out. Is the intent that when flags are > eventually defined for BGP EPE and Direct, those flags MUST be set to 0 when > originated and ignored on receipt? Would the following work? > > > > > > > > KT> It is actually the other way around. Since no flags are defined for > BGP EPE and Direct, they must be set to 0 when originating and ignored on > receipt. Once some flags are defined, then this (setting to 0 and ignoring on > receipt) would apply only to the undefined flags alone. I hope that clarifies. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP > EPE > > > > or for advertisement of SRv6 SIDs using Direct as the Protocol- > > > > ID, but when defined, the flags MUST be set to 0 when originated and > ignored on > > > > receipt. > > > > > > > > Updated XML file: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > > > > > > > Updated output files: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > > > > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > > > > > > > Diff files showing all changes: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html > (side-by-side diff) > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html (diff > > > > showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > > > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view > the most recent version. > > > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Ketan Talaulikar > <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your suggestion. I find it more clear. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 9:34 PM <bruno.decraene@orange.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Madison, Ketan, > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine with this document. > > > > > May be one comment, up to you > > > > > > > > > > In section 6 > > > > > > > > > > OLD: This document defines the following new Link-State NLRI type > for SRv6 SID information: SRv6 SID NLRI (6). > > > > > NEW: This document defines the following new Link-State NLRI type > for SRv6 SID information: SRv6 SID NLRI (type 6). > > > > > > > > > > Motivation: the type number is not otherwise indicated in the > > > > > rest of the section. I'd have a preference for an explicit > > > > > mention of "type 6" rather than just "(6)". (I also find easier > > > > > to be able to find type number by searching for "type" in the > > > > > document) > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > Regards, > > > > > --Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Orange Restricted > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 10:59 PM > > > > > To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>; > > > > > gdawra.ietf@gmail.com;cfilsfil@cisco.com; mach.chen@huawei.com; > > > > > daniel.bernier@bell.ca; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET > > > > > <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; Alvaro Retana > > > > > <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > > > > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; idr-ads@ietf.org; > > > > > idr-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; > > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 > > > > > <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ketan, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly > and all of our questions have been addressed. > > > > > > > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do > not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > publication process. > > > > > > > > > > Updated XML file: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.xml > > > > > > > > > > Updated output files: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html > > > > > > > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-auth48diff.html > > > > > > > > > > Diff files showing all changes: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html > (side-by-side diff) > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html > > > > > (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > > > > > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view > the most recent version. > > > > > > > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514 > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 2023, at 4:43 PM, Ketan Talaulikar > <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Madison, > > > > > > > > > > > > Some comments on the changes made: > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Sec 7.2 > > > > > > The BGP PeerNode SID and PeerSet SID SIDs > > > > > > > > > > > > The "and" is required above. > > > > > > > > > > > > b) The caption for Table 1 is not correct - perhaps it should be > "Addition to NLRI Types registry" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please check inline below for responses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:43 PM Madison Church > <mchurch@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your > attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 > announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the > AUTH48 review process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.r/ > > > > > > > fc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9514&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene > > > > > > %40orang > > > > > > > e.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc > 4 > > > > > > 8b9253b6 > > > > > > > f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8eyJ > > > > > > WIjoiMC4 > > > > > > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000 > > > > > > %7C%7C%7 > > > > > > > C&sdata=Cpt6r4cCixHPZy1Jq2q7fehFfz6%2BykuZ525O0sHZDrM%3D&reser > > > > > > ved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > The AUTH48 FAQs are available at: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www/. > > > > > > > rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F%23auth48&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene > > > > > > %40orang > > > > > > > e.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc > 4 > > > > > > 8b9253b6 > > > > > > > f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > d8eyJ > > > > > > WIjoiMC4 > > > > > > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000 > > > > > > %7C%7C%7 > > > > > > > C&sdata=SHr0rKLNh9zHcfcQvNG5x79H87UNXECZsu0i%2FSRbXLM%3D&rese > r > > > > > > ved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:08 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authors and AD*, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *AD, please see question #1 below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authors, while reviewing this document during AUTH48, please > resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors, please let us know if the > > > > > > > normative reference to RFC 7752 should be updated to 7752bis > > > > > > > (see https://da/ > > > > > > > tatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis%2F17%2F > > > > > > > &data=05 > > > > > > > %7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644a > e030b08 > > > > > > > dbe2387d > > > > > > > > ea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486 > > > > > > > 493467%7 > > > > > > > > CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VkPSnTD2bViS > pByFQArRbM62HNxzuvznG7c3wLqNccM%3D&reserved=0). Note that > 7752bis was previously approved and then put on hold by the AD, but it is > now back in EDIT state. If we update to reference 7752bis, both this > document and RFC-to-be 9513 will be published at the same time as > 7752bis. > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> It is not necessary to update this reference. However, if > RFC7752bis is getting published "soon" then it does not harm to update. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that this document makes allocations in the "BGP-LS NLRI > Types" > > > > > > > and "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registries. The > > > > > > > "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry was called the > > > > > > > "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, > > > > > > > and Attribute TLVs" registry in RFC 7752 and changed by > > > > > > > 7752bis. The name currently in the IANA registry is "BGP-LS > > > > > > > NLRI and Attribute TLVs". See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xht > ml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you choose to retain the reference to RFC 7752, we will > > > > > > > use the registry name in that document ("BGP-LS Node > > > > > > > Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and > > > > > > > Attribute TLVs"). If you choose to wait to publish at the > > > > > > > same time as 7752bis, we will use the updated name ("BGP-LS > NLRI and Attribute TLVs"). > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Please see my response to the previous comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document > > > > > > > has been updated as follows. Abbreviations have been > > > > > > > expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions > > > > > > > for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarity "a separate document" > > > > > > > here? Is this referring to a particular RFC? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 > > > > > > > described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the > MPLS > > > > > > > data-plane defined in a separate document. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Yes, that separate document is RFC9085. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see two instances each of the following > > > > > > > phrases in this document. May we update to one form for > consistency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...using Direct as the Protocol-ID ...using Direct > > > > > > > Protocol-ID > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> The first one seems better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "and using" here be updated to either "using" > or "and uses"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Node NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Link NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as > follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps ("using"): > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Node NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Link NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or ("and uses"): > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Node NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the > BGP- > > > > > > > LS Link NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the > > > > > > > BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as > follows: > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Your suggestion with "using" is more appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "are identical as specified" > > > > > > > here. Is the meaning that the new MSD types in this document > > > > > > > have the same description and semantics as the MSD types > > > > > > > defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]? Note that > > > > > > > this sentence appears twice in the document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The description and semantics of these new MSD- > > > > > > > types for BGP-LS are identical as specified in > > > > > > > [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > > > The description and semantics of these new MSD- > > > > > > > types for BGP-LS are identical to those specified in > > > > > > > [RFC9352]. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "for IGPs, direct, and static > configuration" here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > * Local Node Descriptors TLV: set of Node Descriptor TLVs for > the > > > > > > > local node, as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, direct, and > static > > > > > > > configuration or as defined in [RFC9086] for BGP protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > > > Local Node Descriptors TLV: Set of Node Descriptor TLVs for > the > > > > > > > local node as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, the Direct > Protocol-ID, > > > > > > > and the Static configuration Protocol-ID or as defined in > [RFC9086] for BGP. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this text for clarity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > For SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE and when advertising > SRv6 SID > > > > > > > using Direct Protocol-ID, none are defined currently and they > MUST > > > > > > > be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > > > > No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to > BGP EPE > > > > > > > or for advertisement of a SRv6 SID using the Direct Protocol-ID. > Flags MUST > > > > > > > be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree with your proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "SET" to "set" at the end of > > > > > > > this sentence. Please let us know any objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > For SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Set SID, > > > > > > > multiple instances of this TLV (one for each peer in the "peer > set") > > > > > > > are associated with the SRv6 SID and the S-Flag is SET. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2: FYI - We have updated the name > > > > > > > of the registry in this section to "BGP-LS NLRI and > > > > > > > Attribute TLVs" to match the title currently in the IANA > > > > > > > registry (renamed per draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis). Depending > > > > > > > on the response to our question #1, we will either use the > > > > > > > name of the registry per RFC > > > > > > > 7752 ("BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix > > > > > > > Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs") or the name per > draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis ("BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs"). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link to registry: > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-ls-parameters%2Fbgp-ls-parame > > > > > > > ters.xht > > > > > > > ml%23node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attri > > > > > > > bute-tlv > > > > > > > > &data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644 > > > > > > > ae030b08 > > > > > > > > dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6383 > > > > > > > 52504486 > > > > > > > > 493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV > > > > > > > 2luMzIiL > > > > > > > > CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gaQ%2FEI > > > > > > > 6K85rcFc > > > > > > > REDGBmBklZCqyiaN2x6y06GocnAks%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Please refer to my response to the first point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "set up to routers" is correct. > > > > > > > Or should this be updated to "set up for routers" ("for" > > > > > > > instead of "to")? Also, is the capitaliation of "Link-State" correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > BGP peering sessions for > > > > > > > address-families other than Link-State may be set up to routers > > > > > > > outside the SR domain. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> "set up to" is correct and the capitalization is correct as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. > > > > > > > Should either the closed or open form be used consistently? > > > > > > > Or should "PeerSet" and "PeerNode" be used when followed by > "SID", and then "Peer Set" and "Peer Node" > > > > > > > be used elsewhere? We see "PeerSet SID" in RFCs 8402 and > > > > > > > 9086, and we see "PeerNode SID" in RFC 9086. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PeerSet vs. Peer Set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PeerNode vs. Peer Node > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> We should follow RFC8402 and RFC9086. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) This relates to the question above. The name of the TLV > > > > > > > defined in Section > > > > > > > 7.2 is "SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV". Should this be updated > > > > > > > to "SRv6 BGP PeerNode SID TLV" (with "PeerNode" rather than > > > > > > > "Peer Node")? If so, we will ask IANA to update the registry > accordingly prior to publication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link to registry: > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-ls-parameters%2Fbgp-ls-parame > > > > > > > ters.xht > > > > > > > > ml%23srv6-bgp-epe-sid&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange > > > > > > > .com%7C0 > > > > > > > > 2e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b > > > > > > > 6f5d20%7 > > > > > > > > C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj > oi > > > > > > > MC4wLjAw > > > > > > > > MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C > > > > > > > %7C%7C&s > > > > > > > > data=UZTWlxX52BAcCCG4ksC44OVyygPlgW8pvf0iv6m9wh8%3D&reserved > > > > > > > =0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. Let us update as per the terminology in RFC8402/9086. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) May we update the instance of "peer sessions" in this > > > > > > > sentence to "peering sessions" to match usage elsewhere in the > document? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > ...therefore MAY be assigned to one or more > > > > > > > End.X SIDs associated with BGP peer sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> "peering sessions" is more appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d) FYI, we updated "SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV" to "SRv6 > BGP Peer Node SID TLV" > > > > > > > (no "EPE") for consistency with the name used elswhere in the > document. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > * The BGP EPE Peer Node context for a PeerNode SID, and the > Peer Set > > > > > > > context for a PeerSet SID [RFC8402] are advertised via the > SRv6 > > > > > > > BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV (Section 7.2), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e) FYI, we updated "OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X sub-TLV" here to > > > > > > > "OSPFv3 > > > > > > > SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV" (with "SID") to match usage in > > > > > > > Section > > > > > > > 9.2 of RFC-to-be 9513. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The information advertised via this TLV is derived from the IS-IS > SRv6 > > > > > > > LAN End.X SID sub-TLV (section 8.2 of > > > > > > > [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]) or the OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X > > > > > > > sub-TLV (section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]) in > the > > > > > > > case of IS-IS or OSPFv3 respectively. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Agree. "SID" is required in the name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" > > > > > > > portion of the online Style Guide <https://w/ > > > > > > > ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_langua > > > > > > > ge&data= > > > > > > > > 05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b > > > > > > > 08dbe238 > > > > > > > > 7dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6383525044 > 86493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi > V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e > xDdgSsc6tdwamgMDodmQ%2BHPbUePBXozcdbw9T75RMI%3D&reserved=0> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag > any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Expansions for abbreviations have > > > > > > > been added upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style > Guide"). > > > > > > > Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure > correctness. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > KT> Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ketan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/mc/rv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:05 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Updated 2023/10/30 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Author(s): > > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been > > > > > > > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be > published as an RFC. > > > > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several > > > > > > > remedies available as listed in the FAQ > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other > > > > > > > parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary > > > > > > > before providing your approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Planning your review > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC > > > > > > > Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments > > > > > > > marked as > > > > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > > > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > > > > > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Content > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this > > > > > > > cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular > attention to: > > > > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > > > > > > - contact information > > > > > > > - references > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined > > > > > > > in RFC > > > > > > > 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – > > > > > > > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that > > > > > > > elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, > > > > > > > ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. > > > > > > > See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Formatted output > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that > > > > > > > the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the > > > > > > > XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have > > > > > > > formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Submitting changes > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY > > > > > > > ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see > > > > > > > your changes. The parties > > > > > > > include: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your coauthors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > > > > > > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > > > > > > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing > list > > > > > > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active > discussion > > > > > > > list: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * More info: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ma/ > > > > > > > ilarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4 > > > > > > > Q9l2USxI > > > > > > > > Ae6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e86 > > > > > > > 4ba4d264 > > > > > > > > 4ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7 > > > > > > > C0%7C638 > > > > > > > > 352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD > Ai > > > > > > > LCJQIjoi > > > > > > > > V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata > > > > > > > =U4IolTk > > > > > > > > j8YKrHM%2FvbnP1WbG0hs%2FCb8SBifs1WvKPLFI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ma/ > > > > > > > ilarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=0 > > > > > > > 5%7C01%7 > > > > > > > > Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387 > > > > > > > dea%7C90 > > > > > > > > c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467% > > > > > > > 7CUnknow > > > > > > > > n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6 > > > > > > > Ik1haWwi > > > > > > > > LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DiyAgpAs1s2VtrPlcezzljS > > > > > > > 5gNacJxY > > > > > > > I0w6AbcUXKYE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt > out > > > > > > > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive > matter). > > > > > > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that > you > > > > > > > have dropped the address. When the discussion is > concluded, > > > > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list > and > > > > > > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list > > > > > > > of changes in this format > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OLD: > > > > > > > old text > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > > > > new text > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and > > > > > > > an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any > > > > > > > changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition > > > > > > > of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. > > > > > > > Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. > Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Approving for publication > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this > > > > > > > email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. > > > > > > > Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message > need to see your approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Files > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The files are available here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cbrun > > > > > > > o.decrae > > > > > > > > ne%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20 > > > > > > > af34b40b > > > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7 > CT > > > > > > > WFpbGZsb > > > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV > > > > > > > CI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3hjxa25isot30zH4qOaVjffg%2BjtV1NMn2P > > > > > > > sGUL3Bkc > > > > > > > 0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbru > > > > > > > no.decra > > > > > > > > ene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a2 > > > > > > > 0af34b40 > > > > > > > > bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown% > 7C > > > > > > > TWFpbGZs > > > > > > > > b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX > > > > > > > VCI6Mn0% > > > > > > > > 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vogzFVWlNhp0vVadB%2BIzI9Fwt0HZYX7%2 > > > > > > > B%2BYXpP > > > > > > > HB8b2c%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cbrun > > > > > > > o.decrae > > > > > > > > ne%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20 > > > > > > > af34b40b > > > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7 > CT > > > > > > > WFpbGZsb > > > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV > > > > > > > CI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PL51%2Becu%2BUfcgXbqZemAcA9NWZkI0e2 > L > > > > > > > oUN1kS20 > > > > > > > 2S8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cbrun > > > > > > > o.decrae > > > > > > > > ne%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20 > > > > > > > af34b40b > > > > > > > > fbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7 > CT > > > > > > > WFpbGZsb > > > > > > > > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV > > > > > > > CI6Mn0%3 > > > > > > > > D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hf%2BceMNvDnTTMCYz%2FqLdhi39ynjAWm > GF > > > > > > > 5JSocfXz > > > > > > > iAI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno. > > > > > > > > decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C9 > > > > > > > 0c7a20af > > > > > > > > 34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnkn > o > > > > > > > wn%7CTWF > > > > > > > > pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWw > > > > > > > iLCJXVCI > > > > > > > > 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U8sk09rMHCF1DwT4ng7fr%2FcCkj > dh > > > > > > > 5VX2CYFj > > > > > > > J8YRl14%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C > > > > > > > 01%7Cbru > > > > > > > > no.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea% > > > > > > > 7C90c7a2 > > > > > > > > 0af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CU > n > > > > > > > known%7C > > > > > > > > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h > > > > > > > aWwiLCJX > > > > > > > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fXvKQuSk1aA%2FKlZPq3Jv6luqg > > > > > > > qLqpbay4 > > > > > > > eFdxPNnqJM%3D&reserved=0 (side by side) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes > > > > > > > where text has been deleted or moved): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-alt-diff.html&data=05%7 > > > > > > > C01%7Cbr > > > > > > > > uno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea > > > > > > > %7C90c7a > > > > > > > > 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7C > U > > > > > > > nknown%7 > > > > > > > > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 > > > > > > > haWwiLCJ > > > > > > > > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tSt9ITE4h6MMIgWjAbdYxBm2 > N8 > > > > > > > %2FT93nG > > > > > > > vcfSBchLHZ0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7 > > > > > > > C01%7Cbr > > > > > > > > uno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea > > > > > > > %7C90c7a > > > > > > > > 20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7C > U > > > > > > > nknown%7 > > > > > > > > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1 > > > > > > > haWwiLCJ > > > > > > > > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Xe6dSLHb65hdHe2Oz8hrSzaOV > u > > > > > > > R3KRpaZy > > > > > > > 6UbMBdpJs%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of > > > > > > > your own diff files of the XML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.original.v2v3.xml&data= > > > > > > > 05%7C01% > > > > > > > > 7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe238 > > > > > > > 7dea%7C9 > > > > > > > > 0c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467 > > > > > > > %7CUnkno > > > > > > > > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI > > > > > > > 6Ik1haWw > > > > > > > > iLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vYjEfnLT1Kfyxt5Vqd3eWE > > > > > > > dnh7xtR% > > > > > > > 2BSpTwRPjKyhxmQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related > > > > > > > format updates > > > > > > > only: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9514.form.xml&data=05%7C01%7 > > > > > > > Cbruno.d > > > > > > > > ecraene%40orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90 > > > > > > > c7a20af3 > > > > > > > > 4b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnkno > w > > > > > > > n%7CTWFp > > > > > > > > bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi > > > > > > > LCJXVCI6 > > > > > > > > Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=22Zu%2FkhmNXZjqm%2BXlbYvqIQ3 > Ht4 > > > > > > > %2BzN4zB > > > > > > > yZiFs3PMfc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ww/ > > > > > > > > w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9514&data=05%7C01%7Cbruno.dec > > > > > > > raene%40 > > > > > > > > orange.com%7C02e864ba4d2644ae030b08dbe2387dea%7C90c7a20af34b > > > > > > > 40bfbc48 > > > > > > > > b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638352504486493467%7CUnknown%7CTWF > pbG > > > > > > > Zsb3d8ey > > > > > > > > JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn > > > > > > > 0%3D%7C3 > > > > > > > > 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NKnzK%2BxVtkXGPQyQlvkH%2B6qmqO29jxK%2Fd > wj > > > > > > > iH2EV2%2 > > > > > > > BI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > RFC9514 (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Title : BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6 > > > > > > > Author(s) : G. Dawra, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, M. Chen, D. > Bernier, B. Decraene > > > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew > > > > > > > Alston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > > > ____________________________________________ > > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des > > > > > informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > > > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si > > > > > vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur > et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant > susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a > ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > > > > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > > > > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > > > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > > > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Orange Restricted > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > ___ > > _____________________________________ > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message > > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be > distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > >
- [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… rfc-editor
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-b… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… bruno.decraene
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… bruno.decraene
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Mach Chen
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Gaurav Dawra
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Andrew Alston - IETF
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-i… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA #1289592] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… David Dong via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1289592] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-i… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-i… Ketan Talaulikar