[auth48] [IANA #1232801] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15> for your review

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Sorry about the delay. This change has been made:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

On Tue Jun 28 18:08:29 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> IANA,
> 
> Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document
> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html.
> 
> Please update the “BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types” registry
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-
> parameters.xhtml#bgp-prefix-sid-tlv-types>
> to add “TLV” to "SRv6 L3 Service” and "SRv6 L2 Service".
> 
> Old:
> Value   Type                    Reference
> 5               SRv6 L3 Service [RFC-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15]
> 6               SRv6 L2 Service [RFC-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15]
> 
> New:
> Value   Type                            Reference
> 5               SRv6 L3 Service TLV     [RFC-ietf-bess-srv6-services-
> 15]
> 6               SRv6 L2 Service TLV     [RFC-ietf-bess-srv6-services-
> 15]
> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Jun 24, 2022, at 9:51 PM, Gaurav Dawra <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Approved.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jun 24, 2022, at 1:57 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ketan and Robert,
> >>
> >> We have updated our files accordingly.
> >>
> >> We will await approval from Gaurav before asking IANA to update
> >> their registry accordingly.
> >> When the IANA update is complete, we will move forward with the
> >> publication process.
> >>
> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>
> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >>
> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html (comprehensive
> >> diff)
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> >> changes)
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> >> version to this one)
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html (last
> >> version to this one side by side)
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:35 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well since you opened that bxo Kentn,
> >>>
> >>> VRF does not stand as an abbreviation for "VPN Routing and
> >>> Forwarding table - that is incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> VRF table == Virtual Routing and Forwarding table.
> >>>
> >>> With that the brackets are not needed and the entire description
> >>> already deserves an errata :)
> >>>
> >>> Thx,
> >>> R.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ketan Talaulikar
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Alanna,
> >>>
> >>> A Minor nit came to my attention in Sec 1
> >>> OLD: End.DT (table look up in VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF))
> >>> NEW: End.DT (look up in VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) table)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ketan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 11:58 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Bruno, Jorge, Ketan, and Shunwan,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your replies. Your approvals have been noted on the
> >>> AUTH48 status page.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>
> >>> Once we have received approvals from Gaurav and Robert, we will ask
> >>> IANA to update
> >>> their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we
> >>> will move forward
> >>> with the publication process.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>
> >>>>> On Jun 21, 2022, at 5:10 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Alanna, RFC Editor,
> >>>>
> >>>> I approve latest version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you
> >>>> --Bruno
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Orange Restricted
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>  From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:41 PM
> >>>> To: Andrew Alston - IETF <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Cc: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; Ketan Talaulikar
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; rfc-editor@rfc-
> >>>> editor.org; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bocci,
> >>>> Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>; auth48archive@rfc-
> >>>> editor.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-
> >>>> services-15> for your review
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the
> >>>> AUTH48 status page.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>>
> >>>> We will await further word from the authors regarding updates
> >>>> and/or approvals
> >>>> prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-
> >>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m ok with the changes to 3.1 and and the addition in section 2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:22 PM
> >>>>> To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)
> >>>>> <[e-mail]>; Ketan Talaulikar
> >>>>> <[e-mail]>; Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-
> >>>>> [e-mail]>
> >>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; rfc-editor@rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Bocci,
> >>>>> Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>;
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-
> >>>>> services-15> for your review
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ketan, Jorge, and *Andrew (AD),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from “SHOULD”
> >>>>> to “MUST” in
> >>>>> Section 3.1, as well as the addition of “Layer 2 services” in
> >>>>> Section 2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ketan and Jorge - Thank you for your replies. We have updated
> >>>>> accordingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FYI, we removed the following reference from the References
> >>>>> section as its only
> >>>>> occurrence was replaced with [RFC9012] in Section 1 per Ketan's
> >>>>> request.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [BGP-SR-POLICY]
> >>>>> Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
> >>>>> P., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
> >>>>> Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
> >>>>> ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-17, 14 April 2022,
> >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
> >>>>> segment-routing-te-policy-17>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> >>>>> (comprehensive diff)
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html
> >>>>> (AUTH48 changes)
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> >>>>> version to this one)
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html (last
> >>>>> version to this one side by side)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 17, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
> >>>>>> US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Alanna,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I discussed offline with Ketan and we decided to modify a little
> >>>>>> bit (for clarity) the second change that he suggested in his
> >>>>>> last email:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two
> >>>>>> occurrences), 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the
> >>>>>> value is set in the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of
> >>>>>> Implicit NULL).
> >>>>>> NEW: it is set to Implicit NULL in the higher-order 20 bits
> >>>>>> (i.e., as 0x000030). In either case, the value is set in the 24
> >>>>>> bits.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have questions.
> >>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>> Jorge
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Date: Friday, June 17, 2022 at 1:32 PM
> >>>>>> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>,
> >>>>>> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, Rabadan,
> >>>>>> Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[e-mail]>, rfc-
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, andrew-
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <bess-
> >>>>>> [e-mail]>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>,[e-mail]
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-
> >>>>>> services-15> for your review
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Alanna,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are 2 further changes based on the discussion below about
> >>>>>> the original "high order 20 bits" error.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/VN3_pFg5CbB337SQYFKDubR_EQM/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In sec 3.2.1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OLD: SRv6 SID value and put into high order bits of the MPLS
> >>>>>> Label field.
> >>>>>> NEW: SRv6 SID value and encoded in the MPLS Label field.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For all occurrences in sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2 (two
> >>>>>> occurrences), 6.2.1, 6.2.2 (two occurrences) and 6.5
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OLD: it is set to the Implicit NULL value. In either case, the
> >>>>>> value is set in the 24 bits (e.g., as 0x000030 in the case of
> >>>>>> Implicit NULL).
> >>>>>> NEW: it is set to the Implicit NULL value (i.e., as 0x000030).
> >>>>>> In either case, the value is set in the 24 bits.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Ketan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:13 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Ketan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We updated the files as requested and
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> a couple of follow-up questions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) This suggested text needs further updating as the either/or
> >>>>>> relationship
> >>>>>> is not parallel. Please review and let us know if option A or B
> >>>>>> reflects the
> >>>>>> intended meaning.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggested text:
> >>>>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the
> >>>>>> encoding of
> >>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services
> >>>>>> TLVs, or
> >>>>>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> >>>>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> >>>>>> specific to that service encoding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps (Moved “either” after allows):
> >>>>>> A) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows either 1)
> >>>>>> the encoding of
> >>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
> >>>>>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> >>>>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> >>>>>> specific to that service encoding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or (Removed “either”):
> >>>>>> B) To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the
> >>>>>> encoding of
> >>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in the SRv6 Services TLVs or
> >>>>>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> >>>>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> >>>>>> specific to that service encoding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Regarding the terminology, we have not made any changes to
> >>>>>> the terms
> >>>>>> where you replied “Depends on the usage”. If any further updates
> >>>>>> are required
> >>>>>> for these, please let us know.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> >>>>>> (comprehensive diff)
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes)
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> >>>>>> version to this one)
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html (last
> >>>>>> version to this one side by side)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any
> >>>>>> further
> >>>>>> updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a
> >>>>>> document is published as an RFC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We will await approvals from each author and the AD prior to
> >>>>>> moving
> >>>>>> this document forward in the publication process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Ketan Talaulikar
> >>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Alanna,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for resending and please check inline below for
> >>>>>>> responses.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:45 AM Alanna Paloma
> >>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Ketan,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The remaining unanswered queries are listed below.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Additionally, they can be seen in the XML file as comments
> >>>>>>> marked as: <!-- [rfced] ... —>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We notice that the Abstract and Introduction use
> >>>>>>> "SRv6-based BGP services" but the title and short title across
> >>>>>>> the header in the pdf use "SRv6 BGP-based Overlay
> >>>>>>>  Services". Should the titles be updated per Option A or B
> >>>>>>> below,
> >>>>>>>  or should the text in the Abstract and Introduction be updated
> >>>>>>> to reflect "SRv6 BGP-based Overlay Services" for consistency?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also note that the abbreviations in the title have been
> >>>>>>> expanded
> >>>>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7332 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>>  A)
> >>>>>>> Title: BGP Overlay Services Based on Segment Routing over IPv6
> >>>>>>> (SRv6)
> >>>>>>> Short title: SRv6-Based BGP Overlay Services
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B)
> >>>>>>> Title: Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Overlay Services Based
> >>>>>>> on BGP
> >>>>>>> Short Title: SRv6 BGP-Based Overlay Services
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> (A) is more appropriate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] In this sentence, does "them" refer to
> >>>>>>> "mechanisms" or "a variable
> >>>>>>> part"? Please review and let us know how to update.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for signaling of the SRv6
> >>>>>>> Service SID
> >>>>>>> by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and
> >>>>>>> carrying
> >>>>>>> them in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more efficient
> >>>>>>> packing
> >>>>>>> of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>> A) (if referring to "mechanisms"):
> >>>>>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6
> >>>>>>> Service
> >>>>>>> SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and
> >>>>>>> carrying
> >>>>>>> the mechanism in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more
> >>>>>>> efficient
> >>>>>>> packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
> >>>>>>> Or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B) (if referring to "a variable part"):
> >>>>>>> Section 4 describes mechanisms for the signaling of the SRv6
> >>>>>>> Service
> >>>>>>> SID by transposing a variable part of the SRv6 SID value and
> >>>>>>> carrying
> >>>>>>> the variable part in existing MPLS label fields to achieve more
> >>>>>>> efficient
> >>>>>>> packing of those service prefix NLRIs in BGP update messages.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> (B) is correct. Wouldn't "and carrying this variable part"
> >>>>>>> KT> be better?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] This sentence is a bit tough to read. Please
> >>>>>>> review the
> >>>>>>> suggested text and let us know if this is agreeable or if you
> >>>>>>> prefer otherwise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows the encoding
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID either as a whole in the SRv6 Services
> >>>>>>> TLVs or
> >>>>>>> the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and encoding the variable (e.g.,
> >>>>>>> Function
> >>>>>>> or Argument parts) in the existing label fields specific to
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> service encoding.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the
> >>>>>>> encoding of
> >>>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services
> >>>>>>> TLVs or
> >>>>>>> the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>>>  in the SRv6 Services TLVs and 2) the encoding of the variable
> >>>>>>>  (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label
> >>>>>>> fields
> >>>>>>> specific to that service encoding.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> I get your point. I think the following conveys the correct
> >>>>>>> KT> meaning:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To achieve efficient packing, this document allows 1) the
> >>>>>>> encoding of
> >>>>>>> the SRv6 Service SID as a whole in either the SRv6 Services
> >>>>>>> TLVs, or
> >>>>>>> 2) the encoding of only the common part of the SRv6 SID (e.g.,
> >>>>>>> Locator)
> >>>>>>> in the SRv6 Services TLVs and the encoding of the variable
> >>>>>>> (e.g., Function or Argument parts) in the existing label fields
> >>>>>>> specific to that service encoding.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8950 includes "IPv4 VPN Unicast
> >>>>>>> over IPv6
> >>>>>>> Core" and "IPv4 VPN Multicast over IPv6 Core". Is "IPv4 VPN
> >>>>>>> over
> >>>>>>> IPv6 Core" okay as is, or should it be updated to reflect
> >>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>> of these forms?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4
> >>>>>>> VPN
> >>>>>>> Over IPv6 Core defined in [RFC8950].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>> A) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to
> >>>>>>> IPv4 VPN
> >>>>>>> unicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B) The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to
> >>>>>>> IPv4 VPN
> >>>>>>>  multicast over IPv6 core defined in [RFC8950].
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> (A) is correct.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] The following text mentions where Route Types
> >>>>>>> 1,2,3,5,6,7,
> >>>>>>> and 8 are defined, but it does not mention where Route Type 4
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> defined. Is this intentional, or would you like to include a
> >>>>>>> citation where Route Type 4 is defined? If so, please
> >>>>>>> provide that reference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> [RFC7432] defines Route
> >>>>>>> Types 1, 2, and 3 which carry prefixes and MPLS Label fields;
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> Label fields have a specific use for MPLS encapsulation of EVPN
> >>>>>>> traffic. Route Type 5 carrying MPLS label information (and thus
> >>>>>>> encapsulation information) for EVPN is defined in [RFC9136].
> >>>>>>> Route
> >>>>>>> Types 6, 7, and 8 are defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-
> >>>>>>> proxy].
> >>>>>>>  -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> The Route Type 4 is defined in RFC7432 (https://www.rfc-
> >>>>>>> KT> editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html#section-7.4). We don't need to
> >>>>>>> KT> refer to it and hence citation is also not required. This
> >>>>>>> KT> is because that route type advertisement is unchanged from
> >>>>>>> KT> the base spec RFC7432. The original text is therefore
> >>>>>>> KT> intentional.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence from "point-to-point
> >>>>>>> services ID" to "point-to-point service IDs"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN-
> >>>>>>> VPWS as well as in EVPN flexible cross-connect; mainly used to
> >>>>>>> advertise point-to-point services ID.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>> EVPN Route Type 1 is also used in EVPN-
> >>>>>>> VPWS as well as in EVPN-flexible cross-connect, mainly to
> >>>>>>> advertise point-to-point service IDs.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack. Your suggestion above is better than the original.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] We have included some specific information about
> >>>>>>> the IANA
> >>>>>>> text below (mainly FYIs). In addition to reviewing those
> >>>>>>> changes, please
> >>>>>>> review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us
> >>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>> if any further updates are needed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A) FYI: For values 5 and 6, the Type names do not include "TLV"
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>> "BGP Prefix-SID TLV Types" subregistry. We will ask IANA to add
> >>>>>>> "TLV"
> >>>>>>> to the subregistry accordingly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current (Table 1):
> >>>>>>> | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
> >>>>>>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> >>>>>>> | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service TLV | RFC 9252 |
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current (IANA registry):
> >>>>>>> | 5 | SRv6 L3 Service | RFC 9252 |
> >>>>>>> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
> >>>>>>> | 6 | SRv6 L2 Service | RFC 9252 |
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B) FYI: The registration procedures in Tables 2 and 4 do not
> >>>>>>> match IANA's
> >>>>>>> registration procedures under the "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types"
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> "SRv6 Service Sub-Sub-TLV Types" subregistries. We updated
> >>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>> tables to match the registries by changing the "Value" and
> >>>>>>> "Type"
> >>>>>>> headings to "Range" and "Registration Procedures",
> >>>>>>> respectively;
> >>>>>>> moving the value "0" and its corresponding information to
> >>>>>>> Tables 3
> >>>>>>> and 5; and changing "Reserved" to "IETF Review" for value 255.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> Value Type
> >>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>>>>>> 0 Reserved
> >>>>>>> 0-127 IETF Review
> >>>>>>> 128-254 First Come First Served
> >>>>>>> 255 Reserved
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current (for Tables 2 and 4):
> >>>>>>> Range Registration Procedures
> >>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >>>>>>> 0-127 IETF Review
> >>>>>>> 128-254 First Come First Served
> >>>>>>> 255 IETF Review
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> C) FYI: Tables 3 and 5 have been updated to match the
> >>>>>>> relevant IANA registries. Please review.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] May we update "SRv6 SID Endpoint" to be "SRv6
> >>>>>>> Endpoint" to
> >>>>>>>  reflect usage throughout the document?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>>> The SRv6 SID Endpoint behaviors implementing the services
> >>>>>>> signalled
> >>>>>>> in this document are defined in [RFC8986] and hence the
> >>>>>>> security
> >>>>>>> considerations of that document apply.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>>> The SRv6 Endpoint behaviors implementing the services signaled
> >>>>>>> in this document are defined in [RFC8986]; hence, the security
> >>>>>>> considerations of that document apply.
> >>>>>>>  -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack. Your suggested change is better than the original.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI: The following reference has been deleted
> >>>>>>> from the
> >>>>>>> References section as it was only mentioned within the
> >>>>>>> Implementation Status section, which has been deleted per your
> >>>>>>> request.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Removed:
> >>>>>>> [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]
> >>>>>>> Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., Rajaraman,
> >>>>>>> K., and A. Dhamija, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment
> >>>>>>> Status", draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-13
> >>>>>>> (work in progress), March 2022.
> >>>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Ack
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 11) <!--[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. -->
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Looks good to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology
> >>>>>>> appears to be used
> >>>>>>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know
> >>>>>>> if/how they
> >>>>>>> may be made consistent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> In general, when referring to the name of a field, TLV/sub-
> >>>>>>> KT> TLV, SID, etc. we have used the capitalized versions. In
> >>>>>>> KT> other places, as "normal text", there should not be
> >>>>>>> KT> capitalization.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - SRv6 Service vs. SRv6 service
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Depends on the usage
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - MPLS Label field vs. MPLS label field
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> "MPLS Label field" since we are referring to the name of a
> >>>>>>> KT> field.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Endpoint Behavior vs. Endpoint behavior vs. endpoint behavior
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> I would think in almost all cases, "Endpoint Behavior"
> >>>>>>> KT> would be more appropriate - but please correct me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - BGP Service vs. BGP service
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Depends on the usage
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Transposition Offset vs. transposition offset
> >>>>>>> - Transposition Length vs. transposition length
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Depends on the usage.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Transposition Scheme vs. transposition scheme
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> The capitalized version was used because we are referring
> >>>>>>> KT> to the name of the scheme.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> There is an error in the draft that has been thankfully
> >>>>>>> KT> caught by a WG participant that we would like to fix.
> >>>>>>> KT> Please see the thread
> >>>>>>> KT> here:https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/puPdmGwKmmGMJaA_eW_vOM6Bk-
> >>>>>>> KT> k/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The following change is required in the following places:
> >>>>>>> - 6.1.1 para 2
> >>>>>>> - 6.1.2 para 2
> >>>>>>> - 6.2 para 4 and 5
> >>>>>>> - 6.2.1 para 1
> >>>>>>> - 6.2.2 para 1 and 2
> >>>>>>> - 6.5 para 4
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OLD: the value is set in the high order 20 bits
> >>>>>>> NEW: the value is set in the 24 bits
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> KT> Additionally, I would like to suggest the following
> >>>>>>> KT> editorial changes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OLD: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> >>>>>>> NEW: If this is going to be replaced by RFC number since it is
> >>>>>>> also in the RFCed Q, then that is ok. If not, I would suggest
> >>>>>>> [SEGMENT-ROUTING-POLICY].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OLD: [IDR-SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> >>>>>>> NEW: [BGP-SR-POLICY]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OLD: [LSR-FLEX-ALGO]
> >>>>>>> NEW: [IGP-FLEX-ALGO]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am yet to do a full review pass and will do so once these
> >>>>>>> updates have been incorporated on the full diff against the
> >>>>>>> original text.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Ketan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> —>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 2022, at 11:28 AM, Ketan Talaulikar
> >>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Alanna,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For some reason, I am unable to locate your first email (the
> >>>>>>>> one with the questions?) in my mailbox. Could you please
> >>>>>>>> resend it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Ketan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:28 AM Alanna Paloma
> >>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>  Authors and *Andrew (AD),
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Andrew (AD) - Please review and approve the change from
> >>>>>>>> “SHOULD” to “MUST” in
> >>>>>>>> Section 3.1 in the diff file below.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-ad-diff.html
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as
> >>>>>>>> requested.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note that Bruno’s response only answered query 4). Please
> >>>>>>>> review our previous mail
> >>>>>>>> (sent on June 10, 2022) to review and respond the the
> >>>>>>>> remaining queries.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> >>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff)
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>>>> (all AUTH48 changes)
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastdiff.html
> >>>>>>>> (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-lastrfcdiff.html
> >>>>>>>> (rfcdiff between last version and this)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not
> >>>>>>>> change once
> >>>>>>>> published as RFCs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We will await responses to our queries and any further changes
> >>>>>>>> you may have, as well as
> >>>>>>>> approvals from each author and the *AD prior to moving forward
> >>>>>>>> in the publication process.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:16 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Andrew, ADs, Ketan 1rst & 2nd questions are for you. And
> >>>>>>>>> checking the 3rd would be safer. Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi RFC Editor, all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the work.
> >>>>>>>>> I've reviewed the diff and the full text.
> >>>>>>>>> Please find below some proposed changes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> §3.1
> >>>>>>>>>  In this doc, the semantic of all reserved fields are
> >>>>>>>>> specified as MUST on the sender side, and MUST on the
> >>>>>>>>> receiver side. (which is my personal preference, but I ignore
> >>>>>>>>> if there is an IETF guideline on this) e.g.
> >>>>>>>>> " RESERVED1 (1 octet):
> >>>>>>>>> This field MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the
> >>>>>>>>> receiver."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> except the following text which is specified as SHOULD, MUST:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> " SRv6 Service SID Flags (1 octet):
> >>>>>>>>> This field encodes SRv6 Service SID Flags -- none are
> >>>>>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>> defined. It SHOULD be set to 0 by the sender and any unknown
> >>>>>>>>> flags MUST be ignored by the receiver."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For consistency in this doc, I would propose
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: SHOULD
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: MUST
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> §5
> >>>>>>>>> " For service over SRv6 core, the egress PE sets the next hop
> >>>>>>>>> to one of its IPv6 addresses."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> May be a personal preference, but I would prefer to make it
> >>>>>>>>> explicit that "next hop" refers to the BGP Next Hop, as
> >>>>>>>>> otherwise it would potentially be understood as the
> >>>>>>>>> forwarding next hop of the egress PE (toward its CE),
> >>>>>>>>> especially since the long previous paragraph refers to
> >>>>>>>>> routing tables rather than BGP messages.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: the egress PE sets the next hop
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: the egress PE sets the BGP Next Hop
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (next hop, next-hop, Next-Hop or whatever is usually used
> >>>>>>>>> equally works for me)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> §10.2
> >>>>>>>>> " [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
> >>>>>>>>> Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
> >>>>>>>>> A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
> >>>>>>>>> Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-
> >>>>>>>>> segment-routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
> >>>>>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
> >>>>>>>>> segment-routing-policy-22>.
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The name of the reference seems (extremely) misleading to me.
> >>>>>>>>> I would assume a typo
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: [IGMP-MLD-EVPN]
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: [SEGMENT-ROUTING-TE-POLICY]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> §2
> >>>>>>>>> " TLV Type (1 octet):
> >>>>>>>>> This field is assigned values from IANA's "BGP Prefix-SID TLV
> >>>>>>>>> Types" subregistry."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: values
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: a value
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> "Any unrecognized, received Sub-TLVs and Sub-Sub-TLVs MUST be
> >>>>>>>>> removed."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Personally I would not put a comma. But English typo is
> >>>>>>>>> definitely not my expertise. So totally up to you.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> §3
> >>>>>>>>> "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
> >>>>>>>>> This field identifies the type of SRv6 service information.
> >>>>>>>>> It is
> >>>>>>>>> assigned values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Sub-TLV Types"
> >>>>>>>>> subregistry."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: values
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: a value
> >>>>>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> §3.2
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Type (1 octet):
> >>>>>>>>> This field identifies the type of Sub-Sub-TLV. It is assigned
> >>>>>>>>> values from IANA's "SRv6 Service Data Sub-Sub-TLV Types"
> >>>>>>>>> subregistry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The field can only contain a single value. So I'd propose
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: values
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: a value
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>>>> §3.2.1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> " While for an SRv6
> >>>>>>>>> SID, where the FL is 24 bits and only the lower order 20 bits
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> transposed (e.g., due to the limit of the MPLS label field
> >>>>>>>>> size), the
> >>>>>>>>> transposition offset is set to 68 and the transposition
> >>>>>>>>> length is set
> >>>>>>>>> to 20."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would not put the first comma. And I could rather use "for
> >>>>>>>>> which" rather than "where"
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: While for an SRv6 SID, where the FL is 24 bits
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: While for an SRv6SID for which the FL is 24 bits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However English is not my first language, so totally up to
> >>>>>>>>> you.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>> §5
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD: When the BGP route is received at an ingress PE is
> >>>>>>>>> colored with a
> >>>>>>>>> Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6 Policy is
> >>>>>>>>> available, the
> >>>>>>>>> steering for service flows is performed, as described in
> >>>>>>>>> Section 8
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> NEW: When the BGP route received at an ingress PE is colored
> >>>>>>>>> with a
> >>>>>>>>> Color Extended Community and a valid SRv6 Policy is
> >>>>>>>>> available, the
> >>>>>>>>> steering for service flows is performed as described in
> >>>>>>>>> Section 8
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> i.e.
> >>>>>>>>> :s/is received/received
> >>>>>>>>> :s/is performed, as described/ is performed as described
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> §6
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Idem above. (except that the 2nd correction is already in
> >>>>>>>>> place)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> --Bruno
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Orange Restricted
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>  From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 10:56 PM
> >>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
> >>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>;
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail];[e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; bess-
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; andrew-
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9252 <draft-ietf-bess-srv6-
> >>>>>>>>> services-15> for your review
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Updated 2022/06/10
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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://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://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Formatted output
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> >>>>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
> >>>>>>>>> file, is
> >>>>>>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> >>>>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Submitting changes
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY
> >>>>>>>>> ALL’ as all
> >>>>>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes.
> >>>>>>>>> The parties
> >>>>>>>>> include:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * your coauthors
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> >>>>>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> >>>>>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * [e-mail], which is a new archival
> >>>>>>>>> mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
> >>>>>>>>> discussion
> >>>>>>>>> list:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * More info:
> >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-
> >>>>>>>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * The archive itself:
> >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
> >>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>> of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> >>>>>>>>> matter).
> >>>>>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
> >>>>>>>>> — OR —
> >>>>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OLD:
> >>>>>>>>> old text
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> NEW:
> >>>>>>>>> new text
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> >>>>>>>>> explicit
> >>>>>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any
> >>>>>>>>> changes that seem
> >>>>>>>>>  beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text,
> >>>>>>>>> deletion of text,
> >>>>>>>>>  and technical changes. Information about stream managers can
> >>>>>>>>> be found in
> >>>>>>>>> the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a
> >>>>>>>>> stream manager.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Approving for publication
> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this
> >>>>>>>>> email stating
> >>>>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY
> >>>>>>>>> ALL’,
> >>>>>>>>> as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your
> >>>>>>>>> approval.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Files
> >>>>>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The files are available here:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.xml
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.html
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.pdf
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.txt
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-diff.html
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-rfcdiff.html (side
> >>>>>>>>> by side)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252-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/rfc9252.original.v2v3.xml
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> >>>>>>>>> updates
> >>>>>>>>> only:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9252.form.xml
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tracking progress
> >>>>>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9252
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> RFC9252 (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-15)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Title : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
> >>>>>>>>> Author(s) : G. Dawra, Ed., K. Talaulikar, Ed., R. Raszuk, B.
> >>>>>>>>> Decraene, S. Zhuang, J. Rabadan
> >>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >