Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14> for your review
"Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> Fri, 19 April 2024 20:56 UTC
Return-Path: <zzhang@juniper.net>
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 29FAFC14F60A; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.142
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-2.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b="kzfNlIXT"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b="IeCcNb8p"
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 h92S9Cf0wpFg; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 4B5DCC14F711; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.17.1.24/8.17.1.24) with ESMTP id 43JJbQnG023576; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:56:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to :content-type:mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=nAKfG1rTdAqQgSbeZ6RA8x xLanjKapE7cHpWDNn6GEc=; b=kzfNlIXTSUkQuinT1fzIGdVal0QVFIx2Qux/+X tkcFu8/yia0Q95gjMO8Zn9ykDmFBjnMobT0zxBA9tEbPukVGKxAg3bcJCVtUGI5h fw6t7hUbgiyM6rvCtq2IIAS0OUDs29N9Xw3tON4KH43hjSM8Hiy0wZlZV7/LU6CK kM2czqMd6c9oiWx7iC32QC2GKLWOq7tS1524XugKpbKF4SN9mtAisOe7DhL2KkpG e4FK0oDLk9ksiR7CtygjsT3MP8YqbH1F39oYWue/um8lcSa5dgEzJqsmcns8jmUj p4cV3e3gqvu4OUbHApvzqln4umK8S7fdfsoLfZaByOzUJsZQ==
Received: from nam10-mw2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam10lp2100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.55.100]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xknhbsbca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=CwzqKvav+x9hS8CFGSONiCJXdge2R924KG+yOR1JvjAi0DznmViAFvgTtzGvEfc6fsIEs4jz1w6/jCW2juoVJoPUu13C+xzj/Y5ksl5o5op8RAkR0CKkKYIeqEOeSWA0AkdafdrQGYIsHDE49zp+0IrDq7J6OY2a3e4IOQNW5TchV0N4H596fWEOmqEDzYkigYyVUAtR9n3FtWLB2I6PfOCmJkQfx3Gqhp647wpunAATPrdP56zoWUAzjmJhN6jtD8bhUjl7+hAHKgVNdClt3o+4wFAuj9u63iS9i/HhRL5cTBt6J2PtVRRmr+rAthWF8/rCh/cPNkRQRtRwn1Fdgg==
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=nAKfG1rTdAqQgSbeZ6RA8xxLanjKapE7cHpWDNn6GEc=; b=BVNLu5sMyx6OzMBcGL9evW+s7bqysNQtrzmsgig4xUtjS6qRukuOQxiSpSXcPDNiVTUcCEZTM3SicTMj3wjI5Moa5pJHQ8MtS/NWJ7pX++jr27fU7G3Rorji8AOZ3qjI0XmLvw9ATa8jmTXIGKfclp6Z5R27DTKQyNn8NHlvt4t/RH/bSZxjVIRlivlyNhPK7QejWccTaMxv/Chkmlz7OR6Pma5L0rmj7jw00Bcm7BliJz0KeYuVdJIJnC87ELM+r7oI72QmlnRbDX44DjnFxggamALX0xCTrQyofLByn4uzfF80BBHkaZPN2OtfXC/qL1DgEp73Kee9XBGtggzuFw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nAKfG1rTdAqQgSbeZ6RA8xxLanjKapE7cHpWDNn6GEc=; b=IeCcNb8pi9YeZBrLCY5QXT2Nhze57FoysbHg43QS/QFhJGtmLUKEmpkP5EEyynkiUJNWThXgpnGRaho/dqdFFpdrB27jlj3m6R5OnTlKhwy5m+vo0pAt735adNf/uJ3HjlxA4v9Znl11f8mgtkwaBfsLrQ6+Bl12Eb4yxr0rxtM=
Received: from IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:426::16) by IA0PR05MB10096.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:40c::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7472.43; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:56:12 +0000
Received: from IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8a79:8839:570e:a429]) by IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8a79:8839:570e:a429%4]) with mapi id 15.20.7472.037; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:56:12 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>, "erosen52@gmail.com" <erosen52@gmail.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, "lizhenbin@huawei.com" <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, "ice@braindump.be" <ice@braindump.be>
CC: "bess-ads@ietf.org" <bess-ads@ietf.org>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>, "gunter@vandevelde.cc" <gunter@vandevelde.cc>, "gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14> for your review
Thread-Index: AQHai5j+ohilS8PC6EeqjV1jzYmyALFv5a8AgAAAugCAADpXJA==
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:56:12 +0000
Message-ID: <IA1PR05MB95502800143BD1067B8614A8D40D2@IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20240410224652.C11A5190740A@rfcpa.amsl.com> <0CE022B0-0324-4F57-B6E2-DB640E1C632A@amsl.com> <ED3F5099-1AE5-405D-8704-86349B128A55@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED3F5099-1AE5-405D-8704-86349B128A55@amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2024-04-19T20:55:55.6251549Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: IA1PR05MB9550:EE_|IA0PR05MB10096:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9d439aca-fa10-4ed8-1ef9-08dc60b3254f
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230031)(376005)(7416005)(1800799015)(366007)(38070700009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_IA1PR05MB95502800143BD1067B8614A8D40D2IA1PR05MB9550namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: IA1PR05MB9550.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9d439aca-fa10-4ed8-1ef9-08dc60b3254f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Apr 2024 20:56:12.0855 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 2csZjYL/5RuqGs6tuFgtdt7xGu+j6Bq9ZjJ+b/TNpYiCW/rNpqhkBrFO0kRBLjRrqw7LI+UXUIwNHDcNYbho7g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: IA0PR05MB10096
X-Proofpoint-GUID: u7wBAqg6XlU21Kn9k9cvXh172Dj-2OFu
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: u7wBAqg6XlU21Kn9k9cvXh172Dj-2OFu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-04-19_15,2024-04-19_01,2023-05-22_02
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2404010003 definitions=main-2404190163
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/mtCXmijoVtfpLEemeCFVDVHlieo>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-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: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:56:47 -0000
Hi Lynne, Sorry for not responding earlier. I have been traveling for business and vacation but will prioritize this once I get back this Monday. Thanks! Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only ________________________________ From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 11:27:08 AM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; erosen52@gmail.com <erosen52@gmail.com>; Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>; lizhenbin@huawei.com <lizhenbin@huawei.com>; ice@braindump.be <ice@braindump.be> Cc: bess-ads@ietf.org <bess-ads@ietf.org>; bess-chairs@ietf.org <bess-chairs@ietf.org>; slitkows.ietf@gmail.com <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>; gunter@vandevelde.cc <gunter@vandevelde.cc>; gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14> for your review [External Email. Be cautious of content] We got a bounce message for Gunter. Resending, using Gunter's Nokia address. > On Apr 19, 2024, at 10:24 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > > Dear authors, > > We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document and the questions below. > > Please review this document and the questions, and let us know how the document should be updated. > > The files (links copied from the "Instructions for Completing AUTH48" email below) are here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAE5uRYcUg$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEnGGzPLQ$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEcBkHGwA$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFPilva1w$ > > Diff file of the text: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFnA1YUOg$ > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFyS1WLKg$ (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEeGbfIgQ$ > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML. > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.original.v2v3.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAH9F7BFTA$ > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.form.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFZOXekkQ$ > > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/lb > > >> On Apr 10, 2024, at 3:46 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Running (abbreviated) title (PDF output): We changed >> "mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label" to "MVPN/EVPN Aggregation Labels" so >> that the title is more descriptive. Please let us know any >> objections. >> >> Original: >> mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label >> >> Currently (PDF output): >> MVPN/EVPN Aggregation Labels --> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >> title) for use on <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAH6ZMPeqQ$ >. --> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Datatracker idnits yielded the following warning: >> >> (Using the creation date from RFC6514, updated by this document, for >> RFC5378 checks: 2006-08-01) >> >> - The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may >> have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you >> have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant >> the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore >> this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. >> (See the Legal Provisions document at >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAHN4XexhQ$ for more information.) >> >> Please review, and advise. --> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] We restructured Sections 1 and 2 of this document per >> standard practice (e.g., RFCs 9251 and 9252, which are also part of >> Cluster 448 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C448__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAF5PH4-Rg$ )) >> and per Section 4.8.1 ("Introduction Section") of RFC 7322 >> ("RFC Style Guide" - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAH72R48wg$ ). >> Please let us know any concerns. >> >> Original: >> 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 >> 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 >> 2.1. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 >> 2.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 >> 2.2.1. MP2MP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 >> 2.2.2. Segmented Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 >> 2.2.3. Summary of Label Allocation Methods . . . . . . . . . 10 >> 3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 >> ... >> >> Currently: >> 1. Introduction >> 1.1. Requirements Language >> 1.2. Terminology >> 2. Problem Description >> 3. Proposed Solutions >> 3.1. MP2MP Tunnels >> 3.2. Segmented Tunnels >> 3.3. Summary of Label Allocation Methods >> 4. Specification >> ... --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Terminology section: >> >> a) For ease of the reader, we defined "A-D" as "Auto-Discovery" per >> RFC 6514 (but initial-capitalized, per other definitions in this >> document). Please let us know any concerns. >> >> Original: >> * IMET [RFC7432]: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route. An EVPN >> specific name for I-PMSI A-D route. >> >> Currently: >> IMET [RFC7432]: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag. An EVPN- >> specific name for an I-PMSI Auto-Discovery (A-D) route. >> >> b) We changed "PMXI" to "PMSI", as we could not find "PMXI" elsewhere >> in this document or in any published RFC. Also, we changed >> "an BGP... routes" to "a BGP... route". Please let us know any >> concerns. >> >> Original: >> * PTA [RFC6514]: PMSI Tunnel Attribute. A BGP attribute that may be >> attached to an BGP-MVPN/EVPN x-PMXI A-D routes. >> >> Currently: >> PTA [RFC6514]: PMSI Tunnel Attribute. A BGP attribute that may be >> attached to a BGP-MVPN/EVPN x-PMSI A-D route. --> >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] "Problem Description" section: Please confirm that >> "the VRF/BD label case above" should not instead be "the VPN/BD label >> case above". We ask because we see "VPN/BD" used in the first >> paragraph of this section and elsewhere in this document, but we do >> not see any other instances of "VRF/BD" in this document. >> >> Original: >> From the >> receiving PE's point of view, the ESI label is (upstream-)assigned >> from the source PE's label space, so the receiving PE needs to >> maintain context-specific label tables, one for each source PE, just >> like the VRF/BD label case above. --> >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solutions" section: Please confirm that >> "Access Circuits" and not "Attachment Circuits" is correct here. >> >> Original: >> A PE that is >> attached (via L3VPN VRF interfaces or EVPN Access Circuits) would >> know by provisioning which label from the DCB corresponds to which of >> its locally attached VPNs, BDs, or ESes. --> >> >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solutions" section: This sentence does not >> parse. It appears that some words are missing. Please clarify >> "and they are all provisioned that label". >> >> Also, should "[1000, 2000]" be "[1000~2000]" per other block ranges >> listed in this document? >> >> Original: >> For example, all PEs could reserve a DCB [1000, 2000] and they are >> all provisioned that label 1000 maps to VPN 0, 1001 to VPN 1, and so >> forth. >> >> Possibly: >> For example, all PEs could reserve a DCB [1000~2000], and they >> could all be provisioned such that label 1000 maps to VPN 0, 1001 to >> VPN 1, and so forth. --> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solutions" section: Is "domain" always >> loosely defined, or does this statement only apply to this document? >> >> Original: >> The definition of "domain" is loose - it simply includes all the >> routers that share the same DCB. In this document, it only needs to >> include all PEs of an MVPN/EVPN network. >> >> Possibly: >> In this document, "domain" is defined loosely; it simply includes >> all the routers that share the same DCB, and it only needs to >> include all PEs of an MVPN/EVPN. --> >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solutions" section: Please confirm that >> "P routers" and not "PE routers" is intended here. (We also ask >> because we do not see "P router" or "P routers" used anywhere else >> in Cluster 448 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C448__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAF5PH4-Rg$ ). >> >> Original: >> Therefore, it is >> better to not include internal P routers in the "domain". --> >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solution" section: Does "independent of each >> PE" refer to allocation, as used elsewhere in this document (in which >> case it should be "independently of each PE"), or does it refer to >> label spaces that are independent of each PE (in which case this text >> should be rephrased)? Please clarify. >> >> Original: >> In this >> case, it may be necessary to allocate those labels from one or a few >> separate context-specific label spaces independent of each PE. --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] "Proposed Solutions" section: As it appears that "them" >> in this sentence refers to "a label", we changed "them" to "the >> label". We also changed "from a context-specific label spaces" to >> "from a context-specific label space". If these updates are >> incorrect, please provide text that clarifies the singular versus the >> plural. >> >> Original: >> Allocating a label from the DCB or from a context-specific >> label spaces and communicating them to all PEs is not different from >> allocating VNIs, and is feasible especially with controllers. >> >> Currently: >> Allocating a label from the DCB or from a context-specific >> label space and communicating the label to all PEs is not different >> from allocating VNIs and is especially feasible with controllers. --> >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] "MP2MP Tunnels" section: We found this sentence >> confusing, because the "Problem Description" section appears to >> discuss more than one problem ("This is an evident scaling problem", >> "this problem has not surfaced", "A similar problem also exists"). >> Which problem is referred to here? Please provide clarifying text. >> >> Original: >> MP2MP tunnels present the same problem (Section 2.1) that can be >> solved the same way (Section 2.2), with the following additional >> requirement. --> >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] "MP2MP Tunnels" section: Section 3.2.2.1 of RFC 7582 >> appears to use a "MUST" when discussing this topic, as opposed to the >> "may" as used in this sentence. Will this distinction be clear to >> readers? >> >> Original: >> Per RFC 7582 ("MVPN: Using Bidirectional P-tunnels"), when MP2MP >> tunnels are used for MVPN, the root of the MP2MP tunnel may need to >> allocate and advertise "PE Distinguisher Labels" (section 4 of >> [RFC6513]. --> >> >> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] "Selective Tunnels" section: We could not parse this >> sentence. To what do "that" and "PE's" refer - a block, a label, or >> something else? >> >> Original: >> To address >> this problem, all PEs can be assigned disjoint label blocks in those >> few context-specific label spaces, and each will independently >> allocate labels for segmented S-PMSI from its assigned label block >> that is different from any other PE's. >> >> Possibly: >> To address >> this problem, all PEs can be assigned their own disjoint label >> blocks in those few context-specific label spaces; each PE will >> independently allocate labels for a segmented S-PMSI from its own >> assigned label block. --> >> >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] "Specification" section: The meaning and purpose of >> this section title are unclear. Would "Specifications" be clearer, >> or perhaps something more descriptive (e.g., "New Extended Community >> and Related Procedures", assuming that this title would be accurate)? >> >> Original: >> 3. Specification --> >> >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] "Context-Specific Label Space ID Extended Community" >> section: Please clarify the meaning of "most significant 20-bit". >> Does it mean "most significant 20 bits", "most significant 20-bit >> portion", or something else? Is this related to Erratum ID 5554 >> for RFC 7432 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5554)?__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAGj4lsMQg$ >> >> Original: >> * ID-Value: A 4-octet field that specifies the value of Label Space >> ID. When it is a label (with ID-Type 0), the most significant >> 20-bit is set to the label value. --> >> >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] "Context-Specific Label Space ID Extended Community" >> section: We see one instance each of "carry a DCB-flag" and "carries >> the DCB-flag" in the "Procedures" section. However, we do not see >> any instances of "has DCB-flag attached" or "DCB-flag attached" >> elsewhere in this document. To avoid confusion, we suggest either >> removing the quotes in this sentence or rephrasing the text. >> >> Original: >> In the remainder of the document, when we say a BGP-MVPN/EVPN A-D >> route "carries DCB-flag" or "has DCB-flag attached" we mean the >> following: >> >> Possibly: >> In the remainder of this document, when we say that a BGP-MVPN/EVPN >> A-D route carries a DCB-flag or has a DCB-flag attached to it, we >> mean the following: --> >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] "Procedures" section: This sentence did not parse. We >> updated it as noted below. If this is incorrect, please provide >> clarifying text. >> >> Original: >> The protocol and procedures specified in this section MAY be used >> when BIER, or P2MP/MP2MP tunnel aggregation is used for MVPN/EVPN, or >> BIER/P2MP/MP2MP tunnels are used with EVPN multi-homing. >> >> Suggested: >> The protocol and procedures specified in this section MAY be used >> when BIER or P2MP/MP2MP tunnel aggregation is used for an MVPN/EVPN >> or when BIER/P2MP/MP2MP tunnels are used with EVPN multihoming. --> >> >> >> 20) <!-- [rfced] "Procedures" section: As it appears that "both" refers >> to the DCB-flag and the Context-Specific Label Space ID EC and not >> to the x-PMSI/IMET route, we changed "both carry" to "carry both". >> If this is incorrect, please provide clarifying text. >> >> Original: >> An x-PMSI/IMET route MUST NOT both carry the DCB-flag and the >> Context-Specific Label Space ID EC. >> >> Currently: >> An x-PMSI/IMET route MUST NOT carry both the DCB-flag and the >> Context-Specific Label Space ID EC. --> >> >> >> 21) <!-- [rfced] Security Considerations: Should "one of a few" be >> "one or a few" or "one or several" here, or does the text mean >> "one out of several possible tables"? >> >> Original: >> In all >> cases, a receiving PE is able to identify one of a few label >> forwarding tables to forward incoming labeled traffic. >> >> Possibly: >> In all >> cases, a receiving PE is able to identify one or several label >> forwarding tables for forwarding incoming labeled traffic. --> >> >> >> 22) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: We cited RFC 8126 here, per standard >> practice (e.g., RFCs 9251 and 9252), and we added a listing for >> RFC 8126 in the Informative References section. Please let us >> know any concerns. >> >> Original: >> The registration procedure is First Come First Served. >> >> Currently: >> The registration procedure is First Come First Served >> [RFC8126]. >> ... >> [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for >> Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, >> RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFvLV6VzA$ >. --> >> >> >> 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >> online Style Guide at >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAGsi0OX6Q$ >, >> 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. --> >> >> >> 24) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the >> following: >> >> a) The following terms/values were used inconsistently in this >> document. We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any >> objections. >> >> 1,000 / 1000 >> >> 1,001 / 1001 >> >> context label spaces (1 instance) / context-specific label spaces >> >> Context Label Space ID EC (1 instance) / >> Context-Specific Label Space ID EC >> >> DCB flag (2 instances) / DCB-flag (9 instances)* >> >> * Please note that although we updated this document so that usage >> of this particular term is consistent, Cluster 448 >> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C448__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAF5PH4-Rg$ ) otherwise >> does not use any hyphenated flag names. Please let us know if >> you prefer that this document use "DCB flag" instead. >> >> Ingress Replication / ingress replication (per RFCs 9251 and 9252) >> >> PE Distinguisher labels / PE Distinguisher Labels (per RFCs 7582 >> and 6513) >> >> per-PE/Region / per-PE/region >> (along the lines of "AS/region" as used in this document and >> companion document draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates) >> >> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this >> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. >> >> Customer / customer (e.g., "overlay/customer", >> "All Customer/overlay") >> (We suggest "customer" per the rest of Cluster 448.) --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor >> >> >> >> On Apr 10, 2024, at 3:38 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2024/04/10 >> >> RFC Author(s): >> -------------- >> >> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> >> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> available as listed in the FAQ (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAHIrmzhbA$ ). >> >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFX1Rqm1Q$ ). >> >> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAGyV8c8sg$ >. >> >> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAHzSMCLKw$ >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFgTejybg$ >> >> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAE5uRYcUg$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEnGGzPLQ$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEcBkHGwA$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFPilva1w$ >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFnA1YUOg$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFyS1WLKg$ (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAEeGbfIgQ$ >> >> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >> diff files of the XML. >> >> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.original.v2v3.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAH9F7BFTA$ >> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> only: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9573.form.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAFZOXekkQ$ >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9573__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FURJyqFyRTgXR3j68B8nuyMtHw-Hf8-0Pt61xGJunetDgcC4f5TEI-mhw7ig9OgA5ZvC17qGyrUYtAGpcshDFg$ >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9573 (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14) >> >> Title : MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels >> Author(s) : Z. Zhang, E. Rosen, W. Lin, Z. Li, IJ. Wijnands >> WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang >> >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde >> >> >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-bess-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9573 <draft-ietf-b… Lynne Bartholomew