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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

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]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> > 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
> <[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
> <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [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]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[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" 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
> 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-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html#section-7.4). We don't need
> to refer to it and hence citation is also not required. This is because
> that route type advertisement is unchanged from the base spec RFC7432. The
> original text is therefore 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-TLV,
> SID, etc. we have used the capitalized versions. In other places, as
> "normal text", there should not be 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 field.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Endpoint Behavior vs. Endpoint behavior vs. endpoint behavior
> >>>>
> >>>> KT> I would think in almost all cases, "Endpoint Behavior" 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 to the
> name of the scheme.
> >>>>
> >>>> KT> There is an error in the draft that has been thankfully caught by
> a WG participant that we would like to fix. Please see the thread here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/puPdmGwKmmGMJaA_eW_vOM6Bk-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 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];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [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.
> >
>
>
>