Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> for your review
Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 06 November 2023 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <acee.ietf@gmail.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 307CEC15C2B3; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 71wGl3Acpaw6; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C66C151540; Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-53e751aeb3cso7769190a12.2; Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:01:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699290064; x=1699894864; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HHdYVE+awEv35KBogiGAplO/8SiK4gG4BFcEpC8fyjo=; b=WMHxwp3QTU3s0XpBnxKs3w3iySXaqhYZEhwL6ODo0gSOckxWCRWKVIO3ILzBw/laOw 0aMKBTkJ0ErBJI0FLoC9WdNuIcV1WvyvcNjX8rDJj0ASABx1cwatNCJN+9GkS+e9zZ1g 1Kqt4me0s4M/bRsa0SPVaiE/kmXExX/MRaDQzR9Y+CZFcUz9B4FzxfX6unmjL5UrxGSJ X/4kYsXgkv9p9Og6YIfwGTveuHXAygBH7LOG6wd1vfOB9jMbEm/DW/z2WDpZbNgcTy8s duV/GtQIoWaaqcGBIGi2XS48fW/K356LqTpo/LtjXMVjDc8qGTt5uet19zzlC/5VJ0Ah BcMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699290064; x=1699894864; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HHdYVE+awEv35KBogiGAplO/8SiK4gG4BFcEpC8fyjo=; b=g5XnI+K/dMrOCHvjxdh0Hoi9gYndE3FLV2y1xD6YzDPyXa+3WRjF3orPUURyypF4fj I7/CIr/6x+8JSm9F/ptktUoe7qX1of99eBA3BqYI/j8LYKXzboXnsGDMEjVTk4/V3rwf SGr/hl8DOP9vrwtjoxDq78m6ZDEay05sJxac2SySjlJuxoUG4lVOsShitI3AzBPxbnOP 8v6Xu7OEw0YjcHjZdho6d+A2Qki2BIx76v9hRpb+rPuC5WyoReP82FCvF7p7fhUIoWk1 uDe1S+8OExYYG6si4UiEzh5Wla+jgRMSU8254Eu0DUM1xMBpemS847sqJmXJZ7CJcnhf tzOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyafAfTe0rPIb6Nwsk8X6pOrltK9UZp/2YVYGrGH29yiopwxAL/ GExC8PRWuto9qZrrQsYxM2I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFjfQTy1lz8gswcKn2X9OImtTTjLY3SoHN25r1OI06selRecwHjHAR0JDUo56HjRQjiAZpMhg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:c16:b0:9c7:4dab:20ea with SMTP id ga22-20020a1709070c1600b009c74dab20eamr14913839ejc.67.1699290064013; Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:01:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2001:67c:1232:144:fde9:a895:2816:afd6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u11-20020a17090617cb00b009920e9a3a73sm36485eje.115.2023.11.06.09.01.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:01:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <C62B83BF-C0EA-48BE-821E-2C75C8064A36@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5EF65FD-5F5E-4FEC-83CB-6841945D8CE1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.100.2.1.4\))
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 18:00:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPwXFYamPprS2EBo8jMZ4Tor9ST0qwEgUQBH-0TvLp-obg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>, Zhenbin Li <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Dale McEwen <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, lsr-ads@ietf.org, lsr-chairs <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, acee@cisco.com, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20231031000248.CB5C4E7C06@rfcpa.amsl.com> <27ABDF6F-6973-42CE-B930-24B79FA9D2B7@amsl.com> <CAH6gdPwXFYamPprS2EBo8jMZ4Tor9ST0qwEgUQBH-0TvLp-obg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.100.2.1.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/pz-HJ-rmTSw7Kuz5dXkh7EYgXcw>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> 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: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 17:01:10 -0000
Hey Madison, Somehow I missed this as well and I’m the document shepherd. I’ll let Ketan respond to the 10 points as document editor. Thanks, Acee > On Nov 6, 2023, at 16:46, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > This is the first time that I receive this email. This has happened to me before since I started using Gmail 😔 > > I guess my co-authors were waiting on me to respond as the editor. > > I'll respond during this IETF week. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > > On Mon, 6 Nov, 2023, 4:42 pm Madison Church, <mchurch@amsl.com <mailto: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.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513 >> >> The 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/mc >> >> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:02 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto: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] 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: >> > OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 >> > >> > Current: >> > OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Registry names >> > >> > a) FYI - We updated "IGP MSD Types" here to "IGP MSD-Types" (with >> > hyphen) as we believe this refers to the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types. >> > >> > Original: >> > These MSD Types are allocated under >> > the IGP MSD Types registry maintained by IANA that are shared by IS- >> > IS and OSPF. >> > >> > Updated: >> > These MSD types are allocated in >> > the "IGP MSD-Types" registry maintained by IANA and are shared by IS- >> > IS and OSPF. >> > >> > b) FYI - We updated "IGP Algorithm Type" to "IGP Algorithm Types" ("Types" >> > rather than "Type") per the name of the registy at >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types. >> > >> > Original (appears multiple times in the document): >> > Algorithm values are >> > defined in the IGP Algorithm Type registry [RFC8665]. >> > >> > Updated: >> > Algorithm values are >> > defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry [RFC8665]. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "as defined in [RFC8986] flavors" as >> > follows. Please review. >> > >> > Original: >> > The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in >> > the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) >> > of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", as defined in >> > [RFC8986] flavors. >> > >> > Perhaps: >> > The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in >> > the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) >> > of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", which are >> > defined flavors in [RFC8986]. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 4) <!-- [rfced] Should this note be in the <aside> element? The <aside> element >> > is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less >> > important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" >> > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >> > >> > Original: >> > NOTE: The drop behavior depends on the absence of a >> > default/summary route matching the locator prefix. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 5) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for >> > readability. Does the suggested text below retain your intended meaning? >> > >> > Original: >> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS, as >> > specified in [RFC9350], like ASBR reachability, inter-area, external, and NSSA >> > prefix advertisements and their use in Flexible Algorithm route computation >> > also apply for SRv6. >> > >> > Perhaps: >> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS as >> > specified in [RFC9350] also apply for SRv6 (e.g., ASBR reachability and >> > inter-area, external, and NSSA prefix advertisements and their use in >> > Flexible Algorithm route computation). >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "Up to 16-octet field" to "1-16 octets" for >> > clarity. Please review. >> > >> > Original: >> > Locator: Up to 16-octet field. This field encodes the advertised >> > SRv6 Locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in section A.4.1 of >> > [RFC5340]. >> > >> > Updated: >> > Locator: >> > 1-16 octets. This field encodes the advertised SRv6 >> > locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in Appendix A.4.1 of >> > [RFC5340]. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 7) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "END behavior" (with all caps) in RFC 8986, though >> > we do see "End behavior" (initial caps). Please review and let us know >> > if any updates are needed here. >> > >> > Original: >> > Every SRv6-enabled OSPFv3 router SHOULD >> > advertise at least one SRv6 SID associated with an END behavior for >> > itself as specified in [RFC8986], although it MAY omit doing so if >> > that node is not going to be used as a Segment Endpoint (e.g., for TE >> > or TI-LFA) by any SR Source Node. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 8) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA text in >> > the document. In addition to responding to those questions, please >> > review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any >> > updates are needed. >> > >> > a) FYI - We have updated the IANA section to use tables for improved readability. >> > >> > >> > b) Section 13.8: May we update the range as follows to match the range listed >> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA TLVs" registry? We know that values 0 and 1 >> > are assigned by this document. Link to registry: >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa >> > >> > Original: >> > Types in the range 2-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG >> > Approval [RFC8126]. >> > >> > Perhaps: >> > Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG >> > Approval [RFC8126]. >> > >> > >> > c) Section 13.9: May we update the range as follows to match the range listed >> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry? We know that values 0-5 >> > and 10 are assigned by this document. Link to registry: >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs. >> > >> > Original: >> > Types in the range 6-9 and 11-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or >> > IESG Approval [RFC8126]. >> > >> > Perhaps: >> > Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or >> > IESG Approval [RFC8126]. >> > >> > >> > d) Sections 13.9 and 13.10: We updated the notes in these sections as follows >> > (it may be easier to see the changes in the diff file). Please review and let >> > us know any objections. >> > >> > Note that we will ask IANA to update these notes in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator >> > LSA TLVs" and "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registries, respectively, to >> > match the edited document prior to publication. >> > >> > Links to registries: >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa >> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs >> > >> > Original: >> > Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are >> > associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be also evaluated for >> > their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs and, therefore, >> > also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" >> > registry. >> > ... >> > Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are >> > associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix advertisements >> > MUST be also evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator >> > Sub-TLVs and, therefore, also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 >> > SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. >> > >> > Updated: >> > | Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are >> > | associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be evaluated for >> > | their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs, which are >> > | required to be allocated in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" >> > | registry. >> > ... >> > | Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are >> > | associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix >> > | advertisements MUST be evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 >> > | SRv6 Locator sub-TLVs, which are required to be allocated in >> > | the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> > Style Guide >> > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let >> > us know if any changes are needed. Note that our script did not flag any >> > words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best >> > practice. --> >> > >> > >> > 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use >> > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each >> > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> > >> > LSA >> > NSSA >> > TI-LFA >> > --> >> > >> > >> > 11) <!-- [rfced] Are the terms "legacy OSPFv3 LSA" and "OSPFv3 legacy LSA" interchangeable? If so, we suggest using one or the other for consistency throughout the document. >> > >> > Original (legacy OSPFv3 LSA): >> > When operating in Extended LSA sparse-mode [RFC8362], these >> > locators SHOULD be also advertised using legacy OSPFv3 LSAs [RFC5340]. >> > >> > Original (OSPFv3 legacy LSA): >> > In cases where a locator advertisement is received both in a >> > prefix reachability advertisement... the prefix reachability advertisement in >> > the OSPFv3 legacy LSA or Extended LSA MUST be preferred over the advertisement >> > in the SRv6 Locator TLV when installing entries in the forwarding plane. >> > --> >> > >> > >> > Thank you. >> > >> > RFC Editor/mc/rv >> > >> > >> > >> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> > >> > * The archive itself: >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> > >> > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). >> > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto: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/authors/rfc9513.xml >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.pdf >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.txt >> > >> > Diff file of the text: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-diff.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-rfcdiff.html (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/authors/rfc9513-alt-diff.html >> > >> > Diff of the XML: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-xmldiff1.html >> > >> > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own >> > diff files of the XML. >> > >> > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.original.v2v3.xml >> > >> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> > only: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.form.xml >> > >> > >> > Tracking progress >> > ----------------- >> > >> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513 >> > >> > Please let us know if you have any questions. >> > >> > Thank you for your cooperation, >> > >> > RFC Editor >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > RFC9513 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15) >> > >> > Title : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 >> > Author(s) : Z. Li, Z. Hu, K. Talaulikar, Ed., P. Psenak >> > WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps >> > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston >>
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-o… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Peter Psenak
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Lizhenbin
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Lizhenbin
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Huzhibo
- [auth48] 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Huzhibo
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft… Alanna Paloma
- [auth48] [IANA #1289591] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… David Dong via RT
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1289591] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Alanna Paloma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-l… Ketan Talaulikar